The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business: Withdrawal of Statement by Mr Roche

Mr Speaker: Mr Roche has requested, and has been granted, an opportunity to withdraw a remark that he made during the anti-sectarianism debate on Tuesday 10 September 2002.

Mr Patrick Roche: In the debate on 10 September I referred to a named Member as a "convicted murderer". I now know that that statement was incorrect, and I withdraw the statement.

Mr Speaker: I think that the statement referred to Mr Gerry Kelly. I ask Mr Kelly whether he wishes to accept the withdrawal.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I welcome the fact that the remark has been withdrawn. It is not the first time that Unionists have abused privilege. In the scheme of things, and considering the speed at which some Unionists are moving forward regarding dialogue, perhaps this is a small step forward.

Mr Speaker: A good precedent has been established by other Members that, when a Member discovers that something that was said was incorrect, it is withdrawn on the Floor of the House. That is a good and proper way to behave.

State Pension Credit Bill: First Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 4/02] to make provision for and in connection with a new social security benefit called state pension credit; and to amend section 43(1) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill: Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill: Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List, which details the order for consideration. There are two groups of amendments for debate. The first group contains only one amendment, which is amendment No 1. The second group comprises the Committee’s opposition to clause 6 and amendment No 2 and amendment No 3, which are consequential to the opposition to clause 6. The amendments, therefore, will be called only if the Assembly agrees that clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, and there is no objection, we shall proceed. I propose to call clauses en bloc, to which there has been no signified objection.
Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 (Representations)
Question proposed,

Dr Joe Hendron: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 8, line 38, leave out "(if any)".
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety scrutinised the Children (Leaving Care) Bill during every Stage of the Bill. The Committee’s report details the scrutiny of the Bill. We took evidence from a wide range of key groups that work with young people leaving care. Clause 5 deals with representations made under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It establishes arrangements for dealing with complaints about services provided under the Order. Each health and social services trust will be required to have procedures in place to hear complaints from young people who qualify for support arrangements under the Bill about the way in which the trust carries out its functions under Part IV of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The Committee welcomed that requirement. It is a positive and much needed step that will give young people a stronger voice in their affairs.
Members recommended one minor amendment, which was that the phrase "(if any)" should be removed from clause 5. That amendment would give the Department authority to make Regulations under article 34 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It was agreed that the phrase was unnecessary.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Éilíonn alt 5 go mbunódh iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta nósanna imeachta oiriúnacha le hionadaíocht agus gearáin a mheas maidir le hurscaoileadh a bhfeidhmeanna faoi alt 2 agus alt 4 den Bhille.
Beidh mionsonraí na nósanna imeachta ionadaíochta agus gearán leagtha amach i rialacháin arna ndéarnamh ag mo Roinn. Níl aon deacracht agam dá bhrí sin glacadh leis an leasú seo.
Clause 5 requires health and social services trusts to establish suitable procedures to consider representations and complaints about the discharge of their functions under clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill. The detail of those procedures will be set out in the Regulations made by my Department. Therefore, I accept the amendment.

Dr Joe Hendron: I am happy with the Minister’s comments.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to speak on the amendment.

Mr Speaker: I received no indication that the Member wished to speak on the matter. We have listened to the Minister’s response, and the Chairperson has wound up the debate.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That is all right.

Mr Speaker: However, if the Member wishes to speak in the second debate, I shall make a note of his name.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I shall indicate my wish to speak at the appropriate time.
Amendment No 1 agreed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Exclusion from benefits)

Mr Speaker: Amendments 2 and 3 are consequential on clause 6 not standing part of the Bill. Several Members have indicated that they wish to speak on their opposition to clause 6, and on the amendments. Therefore, we shall debate those matters together.
Question proposed, 
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 2: In clause 9, page 10, line 14, leave out subsection (3). — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Dr Hendron).]
No 3: In clause 9, page 10, line 16, leave out "or subsection (3)". — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Dr Hendron).]

Dr Joe Hendron: Clause 6 will remove entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance, income support and housing benefit from care leavers who have not yet reached the age of 18. The intention is that the resources currently deployed by providing such benefits for that group be transferred from the Department for Social Development to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
The transferred resources would be used by health trusts to provide support for 16- to 17-year-old care leavers. Around 220 young people are likely to be affected. The clause will place a duty on health trusts to act in place of the parent to safeguard and promote the welfare of young people by providing financial assistance, as well as by giving advice and support. The cost, although difficult to gauge, may be around £1 million to £2 million a year.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
The Committee took evidence from leading voluntary bodies, and from health and social service trusts, both of which have direct daily involvement with young people aged 16 and 17 who have to leave care. Many witnesses registered serious concern about the policy and the likely impact of clause 6 on the young people who will be affected by having their right to jobseeker’s allowance, income support and housing benefit removed.
Barnardo’s stated that
"Access to benefits is a fundamental right for 16 and 17 year olds."
To remove that right will stigmatise those young people. It will make them different from their peers by denying them the same access to benefits.
The Housing Rights Service was also concerned that the blanket removal of the right of young people to claim benefits could impact negatively on those who have become estranged from social services and depend on financial support.
Organisations such as the Children’s Law Centre and the trade union NIPSA echoed those sentiments. They also stated that the proposed financial arrangements would change the ethos of the relationship between the young people and the trusts’ social workers.
Some trusts registered their concern about the impact of clause 6 on the relationship established between the young person and his or her social worker.
They said that young people would become dependent on their social worker or personal adviser for financial help, as well as for advice and support. Witnesses said that that might impose extra stress and pressure on that relationship.
The Family Bar Association asked whether financial penalties would be imposed should the young person not co-operate with the needs assessment. It suggested that the level of control being passed to trusts under the new financial arrangements might raise human rights issues. In fact, several bodies raised that point.
Witnesses queried the consistency of the delivery of financial packages across different trusts, each of which would have a degree of freedom in developing specific support arrangements. Many organisations referred to their unhappy experiences of finding that sufficient funding had not been made available to fully support new statutory responsibilities under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. An important point is that the Order has been around for a few years, and there have been problems in financing its provisions.
Moreover, there was concern that, in moving from a needs-based social security system to a cash-limited social services system, budget considerations rather than individual need could become the basis for decision-making. Trusts would be made responsible for an area of work in which the expertise lies with the Social Security Agency. They would need to create a new administrative framework to manage the extra duties.
We do not doubt that the objective behind clause 6 is well meant. However, the young people involved have already lost the security and sense of belonging that being raised in a stable home environment brings to their peers. They already feel different and stigmatised, and clause 6 increases that feeling. To remove the clause from the Bill will leave 16- to 17-year-old children who leave care in the same position as regards their entitlement to social security benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, income support, and housing benefit as any other 16- to 17-year-old young person who leaves the family home. Except for some changes to avoid duplication of financial responsibility between the Department for Social Development and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the other provisions for young people leaving care will remain.
There is much good in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, and I commend the Minister and her officials for introducing this important legislation. Witnesses who submitted evidence to the Committee eloquently argued for or against clause 6. However, having carefully considered the arguments, the Committee decided on balance, last June, to recommend opposition to clause 6. The decision was strengthened by the absence of a cast-iron guarantee from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that all resources transferred from the Department for Social Development would be defrayed exclusively for the support of care leavers — and that is a key point.
Members were acutely aware of the legacy of historical underinvestment in family and childcare services, especially during the Committee’s inquiry into residential and secure accommodation.
Since June, the Committee has continued to think long and hard about clause 6. Some Members have voiced worries that opposition to clause 6 may have an unwanted adverse impact on the financial position of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as well as on the Northern Ireland block grant, if parity with England, Scotland and Wales were affected.
Clause 6 is important, and the Committee has taken great pride in making the best decision, which is in the best interests of those young people who are affected by the Bill. On 11 September 2002, the Committee agreed by a majority vote to continue to oppose clause 6: the Committee is divided. The ongoing consideration and divergence of views on the Bill reflects the hard work that all Committee members have continued to put in to determine the best course of action on the clause and the Bill.
A key word in this matter is "mandatory". I understand the arguments for retaining clause 6, and we have had discussions with senior officials from the Department. We have put this point strongly to officials, and have asked them whether they can give a guarantee. I understand that money has been ring-fenced under the English legislation. Bearing in mind the difficulties that were encountered in financing parts of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, and the stigma effect, which is also important, the Committee asked several times whether the Department could guarantee that funding that is to be transferred from the Department for Social Development to boards and trusts would benefit young people. The Committee did not get that guarantee. The word "mandatory" would have been key, had it been used. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I shall try not to be repetitive. I welcome the Bill’s aims and objectives. However, it has caused the Health Committee many headaches. At its meeting on 11 September 2002, the Committee was divided on how it should proceed. Had other Committee members attended that meeting, the decision might have been different. The vote was four to three in favour of removing clause 6.
Before the recess, the Committee was inclined to oppose the inclusion of clause 6 in the Bill. It was concerned that clause 6 would remove the right of care leavers to social security benefits. It was suggested that a single financial package might simplify care leavers’ management of their affairs. The Committee was concerned that no guarantee was forthcoming from the Department that resources transferred from the Department for Social Development would be used exclusively for those leaving care.
However, my views and those of my Colleagues have changed since then. I am now absolutely convinced that clause 6 should be retained, mainly due to its financial implications. Without clause 6, funding that is required for care leavers might have to come from the devolved health budget. There are already an extraordinary number of worthy issues that make compelling demands for their portion of precious health funding. Therefore, we are in no position to be extravagant.
Traditionally, there has been parity between the social security systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since power was devolved in 1999, social security legislation in Northern Ireland has proceeded in step with Westminster. I fear that clause 6 will divorce the Province from Great Britain on social security, and will bring parity to an end. I hope that Colleagues — especially in the Ulster Unionist Party — will see the significance of retaining parity with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Without parity, there would be no transfer of social security funding. That would result in money having to come from the Northern Ireland Executive’s Budget. Who would suffer then? If the Health Department had to make up the shortfall, that would involve money that would otherwise have been spent on reducing waiting lists, purchasing medical equipment or boosting staffing levels. I am unsure as to how much money would be involved, but, presumably, it would pay for several heart operations or would provide extra acute beds for the Province.
Furthermore, the system in England and Wales has been working effectively. Why, when its health budget is so limited, would the Assembly choose to pay for something that would otherwise be funded through the Treasury?
Obviously, there are other advantages in retaining clause 6. For example, continuity of responsibility for those young people is desirable. To drop clause 6 would be to risk those vulnerable individuals losing contact with their trusts. There is a responsibility on trusts to ensure that care leavers receive their support swiftly and in its entirety. The money must pass down smoothly to young people. That must be a priority. Those individuals are in need; money for them must not be delayed or swallowed up by other projects. The Health Committee was united on that issue. I support the retention of clause 6 in the Bill.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As other Members have said, the Committee considered the Bill in great depth, gathering both written and oral evidence. One of the main issues that jumped out at us was clause 6. A sizeable amount of evidence came from children’s organisations, including organisations that work directly with children in care and children on the verge of leaving care.
Clause 6 gave the Committee — and me — the greatest concerns. Like the Chairperson, I thank the officials, both from the Committee and from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, for their work in trying to find common ground on clause 6. It is unfortunate that no agreement could be reached, but I place my thanks on record. The Committee has seen more of its officials during the consideration of this Bill than of any other.
Clause 6 will remove the entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance, income support and housing benefit from care leavers who have not yet reached the age of 18. In an ideal society, young people should not be leaving care to go straight on to benefits. That is an issue that must be examined. That is what is happening to a percentage of young people, some of whom leave care with few or no educational qualifications.
The Committee took evidence from leading voluntary and community representatives, and also from trusts, which have a daily direct involvement with young people. Barnardo’s said that access to benefits was a fundamental right for 16- and 17-year-olds. To remove that right will stigmatise those young people. It makes them different to their peers by denying them the same access to benefits. Trusts also had their own concerns. I was struck by the concern that clause 6 would harm the relationship between social workers and young people by changing the nature of that relationship.
I understand and accept that people are entitled to change their minds, but, based on the evidence at the time, the Committee accepted that it would vote against accepting clause 6. [Interruption].
If I am allowed to continue, I shall explain that.
The Committee published a report, which I read carefully at the weekend. However, I am conscious that Committees can receive evidence after reports have been signed off. I am aware that some Committee members, based on the arguments that they have received, have pulled back. I accept that. It shows that, as a Committee, sometimes we may agree as a whole, and sometimes we may not. However, the majority of the Committee agreed and voted that the Committee would still support the removal of clause 6 from the Bill.
I am not for one minute going to speak for the Ulster Unionist Committee members. I am sure that they will tell us how they are going to vote. However, last Wednesday, the majority of the Committee agreed to vote against the inclusion of clause 6 in the Bill. That decision was based not on the benefits issue, but on the stigmatisation that young people will face should their right to benefit be removed, and on other issues that were highlighted to the Committee by leading children’s organisations. Therefore, I support the opposition to clause 6.

Prof Monica McWilliams: One reason why I support the removal of clause 6 from the Bill is a commendation of the Department for Social Development and a criticism of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That might interest some Members who had thought not to support the removal of the clause.
In this country social security payments are still paid swiftly and fully. There would be no guarantee that that would continue to be the case if those changes were implemented.
Last week, the Minister for Social Development introduced some good new legislation that extended disability benefits in Northern Ireland, especially disability living allowances for people aged over 65. The Minister regularly introduces new legislation regarding benefits that focuses on inclusion rather than exclusion. This Bill is rare in that its subtext is the exclusion from entitlement to benefits of one of the most vulnerable groups in society. I am concerned that if the amendment is not agreed to, Members will tell the House about the many young people in their constituencies who receive benefits and who do not know where their social worker is or to which health trust they belong. That is the message coming from young people in care. We must support the amendment and delete clause 6, not only to avoid stacking up enormous social problems for young people and help-providers but to avoid funding difficulties.
Iris Robinson argued that the money must come out of the block grant; that is correct. However, one way or another, it will come out of the block grant. It will come out of either the social security budget or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget. I would be happier about it coming out of the budget of the Minister for Social Development, from which it may be paid more quickly, than it coming out of the budget of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
The guarantee of preserved rights for the elderly must be borne in mind. Those benefits will now be paid from the budget of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety rather than from the social security budget. However, will those benefits continue to be paid in two years’ time, when the transitional period has ended? The answer is perhaps not. There may not be enough money in the budget for those payments to be made to that group of residents in old people’s homes. That example applies to this situation too.
The Minister did not seek accelerated passage for the Bill. One would have thought that she would have done so given the benefits issue. The legislation has already been enacted in England, and evidence collected by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety suggests that it is not working well. It has not had the intended effect — quite the opposite. However, we have continued to pay the benefits out of the social security budget. Thus, parity has already gone, yet no crisis has arisen. Evidence to the Committee suggests that the best approach is to continue to pay those benefits from the social security budget. It is an example of Northern Ireland benefiting from moving in a different direction to England. And why not? After all, that is one of the benefits of being a devolved region. What is best for one region is not necessarily what is practised elsewhere.
A shift in payments from one budget to another would create a further layer of bureaucracy and considerable administration costs for the trusts. We are trying to do away with further bureaucracy. People’s rights should be assessed according to need, rather than on a discretionary basis by an office set up to administer the new form of benefit. Those workers would have to be paid accordingly. Thus, there would be high administrative costs for providing a small number of people with a service that is already provided for adequately under the social security system.
We have made some good changes to social security legislation, especially with regard to lone parents aged between 16 and 18. Changes are also being introduced to legislation that affects carers, which will take on board how their daily circumstances are affected by the fact that the elderly are living longer — an issue that had not been considered previously.
Why is exactly the same not done for these young people? My understanding is that they would receive their basic entitlement and could still rely on social services and their personal advisers for extra funds if necessary. In respect of value for money, efficiency or a needs-based analysis for the most vulnerable group in Northern Ireland, the arguments do not stack up. All the other parts of the legislation attempt to protect those young people, and if we cannot provide for a roof over their heads, for food on the table and for their quality of life, the whole Bill might as well go out the window.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I support the opposition to clause 6 of the Bill. For those who may not be familiar with the Bill, clause 6 deals with changes to social security legislation and the transfer of responsibility for children leaving care to health and social services trusts.
Evidence was taken from various statutory and voluntary bodies, all of which were concerned that the removal of entitlement to income-based social security benefits, and the transfer of financial support to health and social services trusts, would have a direct impact on care leavers. That concern included a lack of commitment from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that all resources due to be transferred from the Department for Social Development would be kept exclusively for the support of care leavers.
Clause 6, of course, will mean changes to the social services legislation, which is the responsibility of the Department for Social Development. On balance, however, the majority view was that the removal of clause 6 would be more beneficial to young people leaving care.
It was further noted that in England similar legislation was accompanied by a substantial addition to the budget, which was ring-fenced. That was achieved by giving additional resources from the special social services grant under the Quality Protects initiative. However, apart from £1·2 million from the social inclusion fund for 2001-02 and 2003-04 for pilot schemes, there is no specific commitment to the overall package of additional resources to assist in underpinning the implementation of the Bill.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with devolved responsibility for social security, child support and pensions. For a considerable time, parity has applied to the relationship between the social security systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, since devolution, legislation has been enacted in parallel with Westminster. However, I understand that there is no legal definition of "parity" in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Parity concerns equivalence and equality of treatment. For that reason I have consistently supported the removal of clause 6 from the Bill. Although I welcome the fact that officials put their views to the Committee, I support the opposition to the clause.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Until it is decided exactly how we deal with parity legislation, the Assembly will continually have to address this issue. We pretend that we have the luxury of departing, if we so desire, from legislative parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in respect of social security legislation. Even the devolved Parliament in Scotland, with much wider powers than our own, did not take it upon itself to do that. Scotland realised that to break parity at any stage — especially while being a net recipient in respect of welfare expenditure — is a very dangerous position to adopt. The Social Development Committee has examined parity legislation, and we have been faced with the issues time and time again. People may like to flex their muscles and suggest being different, but, financially, we cannot afford to be different.
The Treasury would love it if we were to break parity, albeit in a small way. Given that we are the net recipients of over £3,000 million for social security, the consequences of breaching that parity are obvious. When considering clause 6, we must decide whether we can consider seriously doing that.
The Assembly spends about £1 million of the Budget on those who leave care. That expenditure is demand-led; it could be less than £1 million next year, or it could be more. As it is demand-led, the money does not, despite what Ms McWilliams thinks, come from the block grant. It is not part of the allocation that was devolved to Northern Ireland, so if Members decide that it is only £1 million and that, for reasons such as stigma, responsibility should stay with the Department for Social Development, they will find that that is the thin end of the wedge.

Prof Monica McWilliams: In response to Mr Wilson’s points, the Scottish Parliament has done an enormous amount of innovative work on the effects of student finance and free nursing care – both of which affect its block grant – on its social security budget. Of course funding for those who leave care does not affect our block grant — I was responding to Mrs Robinson’s comment that it may do so in the future — so whether the funding comes from the social security budget or from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, there must be a variation.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The point about free nursing care and student finance in Scotland is spurious, because those matters were not reserved, and Scotland had the freedom to change its policy on them. Northern Ireland has that freedom also. However, the measures in place for social security payments are different. If we start to breach parity, albeit in small ways, that will open the door for the Treasury to treat Northern Ireland differently, and Members will find that increasingly the burden will fall on the Assembly’s Budget.
A second aspect of the debate surprises me; perhaps it will be clarified later. It is my understanding that, although members of the SDLP and Sinn Féin have said that they support the amendment to clause 6, that is not the position that the Ministers from those parties have adopted. The Minister of Finance and Personnel does not want yet another drain on the Budget, which he says he works hard to balance every year, and for which he must find additional finance through measures such as rate increases. Do Members want to place yet another burden on him? It would be interesting if he were to come to the Chamber before the end of the debate and say whether his party Colleagues who support the amendment are rebels or are in line with his thinking.
The same applies to the Sinn Féin Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety who, I understand, was happy to allow her Department to absorb the expenditure. Perhaps the fact that her Colleagues who disagree with her did not hobble in this morning shows that she is not too worried about their decision to support the amendment, but it would be useful to hear her view.
Indications are that the Minister of Finance and Personnel does not want any greater demand on his resources, and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety did not disagree with the inclusion of clause 6, unless she has since been persuaded otherwise by her Colleagues.
12.45pm
For all of those reasons, the House ought to support the Bill as it stands and to reject the amendment, because it has been ill thought out and is perhaps a knee-jerk reaction to extensive lobbying. Even if Members are heavily lobbied, it is important for the Assembly to weigh up these matters before deciding to unnecessarily increase a financial burden.

John Taylor: Madam Deputy Speaker —

Ms Jane Morrice: Is the Member raising a point of order?

John Taylor: No.

Ms Jane Morrice: I was about to call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but the Member has permission to speak.

John Taylor: I have listened intently to the debate. Whether a devolved Administration should opt out of parity parameters is highly controversial; when it comes to the social fund and social services, I advise that we should not opt out. First, it greatly upsets the negotiations between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the United Kingdom Exchequer. Secondly, those of us who have been in politics for some time will recall that one of the great breaches in parity was the decision of a previous Northern Ireland Administration to change family allowance levels in Northern Ireland, making them different to those in Great Britain. That created a tremendous controversy. That was not worth trying, and I suggest that this is not worth trying either.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar an chéad dul síos, aithním na hábhair imní a léiríodh faoin alt seo. Mar is eol do Chomhaltaí, cuireann alt 6 deireadh leis an teideal do liúntas ioncam-bhunaithe do dhaoine atá ag tóraíocht oibre, do thacaíocht ioncaim agus do shochar tithíochta i gcás na ndaoine óga sin a bheidh ag fáil tacaíochta ó na hiontaobhais faoi na socruithe nua sa Bhille um Fhágáil Cúraim go mbeidh siad 18 mbliana.
Cé go n-aithním na ábhair imní seo, creidim gur chóir alt 6 a choinneáil. Is é aidhm an Bhille go ndéanfaí riachtanais daoine óga atá ag fágáil cúraim a mheas agus freastal a dhéanamh orthu go hiomlánaíoch. Tá contúirt nach beag ann gur cur chuige neamhiomlán a bheadh mar thoradh ar dheireadh a chur le halt 6. Ní cosúil gur chun leasa daoine óga atá ag fágáil cúraim é a riachtanais tacaíochta airgeadais agus tithíochta a mheas ar leithligh óna riachtanais ar nithe eile mar oideachas agus oiliúint.
Is mian linn socruithe tacaíochta níos loighciúla a chur ar bun a dhéanfaidh freastal ar riachtanais phraiticiúla — lena n-áirítear airgead tirim — daoine óga chomh maith le cabhair eile. Chiallódh na socruithe nua, don chéad uair riamh, go bhfaigheadh daoine óga pacáiste iomlánaithe de thacaíocht mhothaitheach, phraiticiúil agus airgeadais, lena n-áirítear plean conaire pearsanta agus measúnú riachtanas lena chinntiú go bhfaigheann siad an chabhair chuí ar a mbealach chun an neamhspleáchais. Bhainfí den bheartas seo mura mbeadh tacaíocht airgeadais mar chuid den phacáiste cúraim.
Tuigim gur léirigh cuid Comhaltaí imní i rith Chéim an Choiste den Bhille an gcosnófaí na hacmhainní a d’aistreofaí ón Roinn Forbartha Sóisialta chuig mo Roinnse. Le deireadh a chur le haon amhras faoi sin, glacfaidh mé céimeanna lena chinntiú go gcosnófar na hacmhainní a aistreofar ón bhuiséad slándála sóisialta ionas gur féidir dul i mbannaí nach mbeidh daoine óga 16 bliana agus 17 mbliana atá ag fágáil cúraim faoi mhíbhuntáiste airgeadais ag na socruithe nua. Tá moladh agam acmhainní aistrithe a chosaint agus tá súil agam go n-áiteoidh seo ar Chomhaltaí gan cur i gcoinne alt 6.
Is é an aidhm atá ann nach bhfaigheadh aon duine óg pacáiste dá chóiríocht agus dá chothabháil — cé acu a dhíoltar sin leis go díreach nó a eagraíonn seirbhísí sóisialta é ar a shon — a bheadh níos lú ná mar a gheobhadh sé dá mbeadh sé i dteideal tacaíochta ioncaim nó liúntas do dhaoine atá ag tóraíocht oibre agus leas tithíochta a éileamh.
Clause 6 will remove entitlement to income-based jobseekers’s allowance, income support and housing benefit from young people who would be supported by trusts under the new arrangements made in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill until age 18. I recognise Members’ concerns regarding clause 6, but I believe that the clause should be retained.
The intention behind the Bill is that the needs of young care leavers should be assessed and met in a holistic fashion. There is a real danger that removing clause 6 would lead to a fragmented approach. To have young care leavers’ housing and financial support needs assessed separately from education and training needs would not be in their best interests. More coherent support arrangements need to be put in place to meet young people’s practical requirements, including cash as well as other assistance.
The new arrangements would mean that, for the first time, young people would receive an integrated package of emotional, practical and financial support, including a personal pathway plan and needs assessment to ensure that they have appropriate help on their road to independence. If financial support were not part of the package of care the policy would be undermined.
During the Bill’s Committee Stage, members expressed concern about whether the resources to be transferred from the Department for Social Development to my Department would be protected. To allay fears on that front, I will take steps to ensure that the resources transferred from the social security budget will be protected to guarantee that 16- and 17-year-old care leavers will not be financially disadvantaged by the new arrangements. The intention is that no young person should receive a package for their accommodation and maintenance, whether paid directly to them or handled on their behalf by social services, that amounts to less than they would have received had they been entitled to claim income support or jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. There is a general hubbub, which should cease so that the Minister can be heard.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Bill’s intention is to strengthen the bond between social services and the young person. I have listened to Members’ points about changing the ethos of that relationship. The Department and I consider that the Bill’s provisions will aid the development of that relationship, which will be the equivalent to that of a good parent.
No guarantee is being provided for the transferred resources in the equivalent legislation in England and Wales. The arrangements are purely administrative; and we wish to follow that model.

Dr Joe Hendron: The Minister mentioned a guarantee as regards the transfer of social security funding. I have written to her several times about funding for children in care being ring-fenced, and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety and Members will be concerned that that will be the case. Will the money coming from social security be ring-fenced? We will come to the issue of parity later, but I would appreciate an answer to my question.

Mr Nigel Dodds: There is no guarantee of ring-fenced funding.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order, the Member will address his comments through the Chair.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The process will be carried out through administrative arrangements in keeping with the procedures elsewhere. With regard to the costs of administration, the legislation is concerned with assessing and meeting need. That is more likely to be achieved effectively by a co-ordinated approach than by a fragmented one that would involve a range of agencies.
In the event that the Assembly does not agree that clause 6 stand part of the Bill, I will seek to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage to amend trusts’ duties with regard to relevant children.
Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new article 34C into the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The article sets out the duties of trusts towards relevant children. Paragraph 8 imposes a duty on trusts to safeguard and promote the welfare of those children. Trusts must provide relevant children with maintenance, suitable accommodation and such other support as may be prescribed in Regulations. If clause 6 is dropped, the provisions of article 34C(8) will duplicate the responsibility of the Department for Social Development for maintaining and accommodating young people.
In other words, primary responsibility for the maintenance and accommodation of such children will remain with the Department for Social Development. To ensure that there is no duplication of responsibility, I will have to consider removing the specific duties of trusts that are set out in article 34C(8) to maintain and accommodate relevant children.

Dr Joe Hendron: I thank the Committee Clerk, the Committee and departmental officials for their hard work. I listened carefully to everyone, including the Minister, and I respect what they said. I listened particularly carefully to Sammy Wilson and John Taylor on parity with Britain. Anyone who has read the recent needs and effectiveness document will know that, compared with England, there is a massive deficit in Northern Ireland’s Health Service. I do not have the figure to hand, but I think that it is around 30%. Over the past few years, millions of pounds should have been invested in the Health Service in Northern Ireland, but it did not happen. We are a long way behind England in that respect, and people who wish to promote parity should realise that.
The legislation in England ring-fences funding from the social security budget for young people leaving care. Earlier I saw Peter Robinson shake his head and say that money could not be ring-fenced. It seems to be done in England, and I would like that to be explained.
It is important to note that, under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the finance for young people in or leaving care has often been found wanting. Young people leaving care are the main concern of every member of the Committee, including those who wish to keep clause 6. Sammy Wilson did not even mention young people; his whole speech was about the issue of parity. I have no problem with the principle of parity, provided that it is genuine parity.
I thank Iris Robinson, Sue Ramsey, Monica McWilliams, Annie Courtney, Sammy Wilson, John Taylor and the Minister for their comments. If the Committee had been sure that the funding from social security benefits would go entirely to young people, that would have been a different kettle of fish. Everyone in the Committee took the time to speak to officials and ask about that matter again and again. Those Members who argue that we should have parity with England should face the truth on this issue. If funding can be ring-fenced in England, why can it not be done in Northern Ireland? I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister of Health faces, and her integrity is beyond question.
A Member made the point that removing clause 6 would make young people more dependent on the benefits system. However, allowing young people leaving care to have access to the social security system is not about making them dependent on it.
Trusts must ensure that those children have every opportunity for further education and access to jobs. In other words, they must ensure that those children are treated equally to their peers who come from a stable family background.
To delete clause 6 would limit flexibility on how resources are deployed. However, if trusts are to act as good parents, the resources available to help young people leaving care should be used as necessary and should be based on their assessment of need and the pathway plans. The threat of limiting flexibility should not be used as an argument to retain clause 6. To remove the clause will prevent a holistic approach being taken and would fragment the service assessment. Assessment of need should be based on a young person’s overall needs. How those needs are met will inevitably be through a variety of agencies, including the social security and further education systems.
Furthermore, to continue to make the social security system responsible for young people leaving care would send out the wrong message about our expectations of them. We do not wish to stigmatise young care leavers; we want to give them the same entitlement to benefit as any other 16- or 17-year-old.
Finally, I listened carefully to the arguments about parity. Nobody would have trouble with parity were it to be genuine parity. All those who helped draft the needs and effectiveness evaluation know that there is not parity between the Health Service here and that in England .

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Dr Joe Hendron: I am sorry. Were I not summing up, I would. If I did, I would have to give way to others, and I cannot do that.
We do not have parity with England, and everyone, especially Lord Kilclooney, should take that on board. Our main concern is young people who are leaving care. This is the Bill’s Consideration Stage, and the Minister can table further amendments at Further Consideration Stage if she so wishes. I have made the arguments for removing clause 6, and other Members and I still want clause 6 removed for the reasons that we have given.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided:
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, Pat Doherty, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, Michael Coyle, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ms Jane Morrice: No amendments have been tabled to clauses 7 and 8. As the Assembly has already agreed that clause 6 should stand part of the Bill, I shall not be calling amendment No 2 and amendment No 3 to clause 9, as they were consequential to the removal of clause 6. Therefore, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the three remaining clauses.
Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Ms Jane Morrice: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Social Security Bill: Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Ms Jane Morrice: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Social Security Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

State Pension Credit Bill: Accelerated Passage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4), the Assembly grants accelerated passage to the State Pension Credit Bill.
This Bill is an important piece of legislation. It will make provision for Northern Ireland to correspond to the social security provisions that are contained in the State Pension Credit Act 2002. As Members will be aware from the previous debate, there is a long-standing principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the fields of social security, pensions and child support.
People in Northern Ireland pay income tax and make National Insurance contributions at the same rate as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I take the view that they are entitled to expect changes in the legislation elsewhere in the country to apply in Northern Ireland with minimal delay. The State Pension Credit Act received Royal Assent on 25 June 2002. The Department for Work and Pensions made Regulations on 11 July 2002 to allow for the early implementation of the proposals from October 2002. From October 2003, pension credit will replace the minimum income guarantee for those aged 60 and over.
For many pensioners who need it, pension credit will not only provide more money. There will also be a fairer system and the decent treatment that senior citizens deserve will be provided. Pension credit will differ from current pension provision in several ways. First, it will guarantee that no one over the age of 60 need live on less than £100 a week, or £154 a week in the case of couples. Secondly, people who qualify will receive a cash reward from the age of 65 for modest savings. Single people can benefit by up to £13·80 a week and couples by £18·60 a week. Thirdly, the rule that excludes pensioners with savings of £12,000 or more will be abolished.
Fourthly, from the age of 60, people will no longer have to report any savings that they have under £6,000. That means that 85% of pensioners who are entitled to the pension credit will not have to report savings. Fifthly, the way in which help is delivered to those aged 60 and over will be modernised, and the rules simplified. There will be a significant reduction in the information that pensioners must provide at the outset and over time as changes happen. That will enable pensioners to get what they are entitled to with much less intrusion and hassle.
From age 65, most pensioners will not have to report changes in income for fixed periods of five years. That will effectively abolish the old weekly means test. Approximately half of all people aged 60 and over in Northern Ireland, some 120,000 persons, will potentially gain as a result of the introduction of pension credit. On average, they stand to gain around £400 a year.
The aim of pension credit is to provide a way to help the least well off and to taper that help for pensioners further up the income distribution. The extent of the changes is such that it is necessary to put in place the required subordinate legislation this autumn to allow time for staff to be trained, and for systems and processes to be designed and implemented.
It will be necessary to begin to reassess the 75,000 minimum income guarantee cases before conversion to pension credit. In some cases, that will involve verification of matters such as age and savings. Moreover, the advance take-on of new claims will start in April 2003, when it is expected that there will be many thousands of cases to be assessed. If pension credit is not in place, pensioners here will face the possibility of not having access to the new pension credit and the more generous income and capital rules at the same time as their counterparts in Great Britain.
Therefore, for the reasons that I have given, I ask that the Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedures set out in Standing Order 40(4), so that we can bring Northern Ireland law on those matters into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom with a minimum of delay. To grant accelerated passage means that there will not be a formal Committee Stage, so I have discussed the provisions of the Bill with the Committee for Social Development. Members will, of course, be able to make their views known at the Consideration and Further Consideration Stages.

Mr Fred Cobain: I explained to the House last week that the Committee for Social Development received written notification in August of the Minister’s intention to seek accelerated passage for the Social Security Bill. In that correspondence, the Minister said that he also intended to seek accelerated passage for the State Pension Credit Bill. As I said to the House last week, the Minister agreed to attend a specially convened meeting of the Committee to explain the reasons for his request.
At that meeting, the Minister explained that the State Pension Credit Bill is considered to be a parity measure in that it replicates the State Pension Credit Act 2002 enacted at Westminster. The Minister stressed that the introduction of the legislation would offer more generous income and capital rules than those that apply in Northern Ireland at present.
The Minister gave three main reasons in support of his case. He explained that, although the provisions in the Bill will not take effect until October 2003, it is necessary to introduce extensive subordinate legislation to give effect to the new law. The Minister also pointed to the need to make significant alterations to operating systems, especially the computer system, and to undertake substantial staff training programmes to ensure the smooth implementation of the new law. The Minister stressed that it was important to get the legislation onto the statute book promptly so that pensioners here can enjoy the benefits of the new pension credit arrangements at the same time as pensioners in Great Britain.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I assure the House that the Committee listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and welcomed his assurances that the Bill’s provisions will be beneficial. It seems that the practical arrangements for the introduction of the new legislation are complex, and although I do not understand why accelerated passage is necessary to accommodate changes to the computer systems and to facilitate staff training, I acknowledge that the Department has a sizeable task ahead of it.
If the House agrees to grant the Bill accelerated passage, I hope that the Minister and the Department will use the time granted in an efficient way. It would be disappointing to hear at a later date that there were difficulties with putting in place the new arrangements and that the introduction of the new legislation had to be deferred. That will be especially true when Members come to consider the third main plank of the Minister’s argument.
As with the Social Security Bill, the Committee accepts the Minister’s contention that it is important to ensure that people in Northern Ireland benefit from the changes at the same time as they are introduced in Great Britain. It is hoped that, by October 2003, the law will be introduced, that transitions to the new arrangements will be seamless and that pensioners will not suffer any inconvenience.
At its meeting on 29 August, the Committee agreed not to register any objections in the debate to the Minister’s request that the Bill be granted accelerated passage.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Minister may have noticed in the media recently that attention has been drawn to the married woman’s contribution to pensions, which was known as the "small stamp". However, that contribution has recently been wiped out, and many of the women who thought that they had been contributing towards their pension have been told that it is now irrelevant. Is there anything in the State Pension Credit Bill that will be of comfort to those women? There has been speculation that married women have lost out on their pensions.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development for his remarks, and I am delighted with the Committee’s approach to the issue. I was glad to be able to go to the Committee and explain the reasons for accelerated passage and to assure the Committee that I shall endeavour as far as possible to keep its members informed — personally and through officials — of parity issues as they arise at Westminster.
The State Pension Credit Bill does not address the issue that Ms McWilliams raised. I am happy to discuss it with her, but it is not relevant to the Bill’s provisions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the Assembly for your co-operation. I look forward to having the provisions implemented as quickly as possible and to meeting the deadline of October 2003 for the implementation of state pension credit in Northern Ireland in line with the provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4), the Assembly grants accelerated passage to the State Pension Credit Bill.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill will receive its Second Stage tomorrow, Tuesday 17 September 2002.

Review of Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland

Rt Hon David Trimble: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the Report of the Review of Opportunities for Public Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland and the Executive’s consultation process on ‘Financing our Future’.
The consultation exercise was launched on 21 May and is due to conclude this Friday. It has been based on the report of the working group that was set up to review the opportunities for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Northern Ireland. The group’s remit was to consider all funding opportunities to assist in addressing the major investment deficit in our public services.
We must take a strategic approach towards investment in order to maximise the return from the resources at our disposal as regards quality and level of service provision. The Executive’s reinvestment and reform initiative offers an opportunity to accelerate investment in infrastructure and reform service provision.
Through it we can make a difference to the quality of our core infrastructure. A long-term strategic approach must replace the piecemeal ad hoc approach of previous years.
A key element of the initiative is the creation of a strategic investment body, and we will introduce legislation soon to establish it. The body should combine the best expertise from the public and private sectors. Given the current investment deficit and the ad hoc way in which the issues had previously been addressed, it is vital that strategic infrastructure investment be viewed in the long term. The strategic investment body will advise on the best use of the financing sources available to us from the public or private sector. It must have the necessary expertise and resources to serve the Executive’s programme of strategic capital investment. We want to ensure that projects are taken forward by the most appropriate method. We want to achieve high-quality public services to maximise the return on our limited resources and encourage investment additional to that funded by the public purse.
The initiative also provides for the possibility of borrowing, and that would need to be paid for from local revenue sources. The option to borrow should provide a means by which we could accelerate capital investment. There are clearly important links with the review of rating, on which public consultation concludes today.
We announced the reinvestment and reform initiative on 2 May and the initial allocations infrastructure projects on 2 July. The initial allocations will secure significant progress on projects including the regional cancer centre; the widening of the M1; improved investment in water, sewerage and road infrastructure and the replacement of 20% of mobile classrooms. The consultation exercise has been based on the Executive paper ‘Financing our Future’.
The reinvestment and reform initiative changes the context within which policy on PPPs will be formulated. No single solution, be it borrowing, PPPs, or the more traditional public expenditure, can be hoped to meet our need alone. Different funding and procurement approaches should provide solutions in different circumstances. Dependence on routine public expenditure alone to fund infrastructure would make it much less likely that we could secure the range or quality of public services required.
Public-private partnerships are one option for helping us to deliver the reinvestment and reform initiative. We must also ensure that all our assets are put to best use. The initial Executive response to the PPP working group report noted that the group’s findings were broadly consistent with the view set out in the July 2001 report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Both reports stressed the need for an investment strategy, a central investment board and value for money. The Executive will consider those points in greater detail, and they could be brought to bear through the proposed strategic investment board.
The working group report includes a helpful analysis of the scale and nature of the investment deficit, its causes and how best to address them. The group estimated that £6 billion would be required over the next decade to cover our investment deficit. The working group developed a definition of public-private partnerships to suit our circumstances. It states:
"A Public Private Partnership is generally a medium to long-term relationship between the public and private sectors (including the voluntary and community sector), involving the sharing of risks and rewards and the utilisation of multi sector skills, expertise and finance to deliver desired policy outcomes that are in the public interest."
That definition of public-private partnerships reflects its wide-ranging nature and its ability to encompass some potential PPP forms. It is important to emphasise that all types of PPP should be considered. There is scope for new thinking and untried models to be developed.
Public-private partnerships have been developed in some public sectors in Northern Ireland, particularly in health and education. Some 25 projects have been developed across several sectors to the value of nearly £190 million. A further 25 projects have been put out to tender and planning with an estimated capital value of £500 million. Earlier this year, I visited the new Balmoral High School, which is one of the projects that have been completed.
The headmaster told me that, although initially he had had considerable problems with this form of finance, he had had a greater input into the design of the school than he would have had under the normal public expenditure model.
One consequence of PPP development is that managerial problems have been shifted from teachers to the private body. It is commonly said that, in the past, head teachers spent 25% of their time on teaching and 75% on administration. The PPP approach has reversed those percentages; head teachers now spend only 25% of their time on management, without suffering any significant loss of managerial control. Those are just some examples of the benefits of PPP.
Whatever model is adopted, we are limited by the amount of funding that is available. The working group emphasised the crucial distinction between financing and funding of public services. Funding is defined as the source of public revenue to pay for the service, whereas financing is the means used to raise the capital needed for investment. The new borrowing power and PPPs represent alternative options for the financing and delivery of public services — not their funding. Whatever model is chosen to service our investment deficit, it must be paid for. None of the available methods is free; they all require a source of public funding.
In developing a policy framework, we must ensure that our available funds are efficiently and strategically invested to obtain best value for money. Increased investment must be balanced with optimum returns in order to ensure that we achieve the required quality of public services. As the working group’s report emphasised, the level of available funding would have to increase significantly in order to provide the required level of public services and reduce the investment deficit.
Given the limitations of available infrastructure funding, we must look hard at all possible sources of ongoing funding for essential infrastructure, but we must also utilise the funds at our disposal to best effect.
The working group concluded that several benefits could be realised from PPP, but there are also several areas of concern. It is important that we recognise and address such concerns when developing our policy. Public-private partnerships are not a panacea for our financing and funding problems, but they can potentially improve efficiency, provide value for money in service delivery and secure lifetime asset maintenance. They also offer one way of achieving earlier service delivery.
Ultimately, we must recognise that PPPs should be chosen as a means of providing public services only where they offer better value for money than conventional procurement methods. The strategic investment board should have an important role to play in advising Departments of the most appropriate means by which to develop individual investment projects.
The Executive recognise the centrality and complexity of the issues of equality and public-sector employees. Those issues were addressed in the working group’s review and in the subsequent consultation exercise. The Executive share those concerns and will address them when formulating policy in that area.
The consultation process lasted 18 weeks, which is longer than usual. We wanted to ensure that interested bodies and individuals were offered as much opportunity as possible to voice their opinions and concerns on the issue, and thus inform the policy process. We endeavoured to have a consultation process that was as proactive as possible. It encompassed debate in the Assembly and discussion with Committees, together with three public meetings that were attended by Ministers. The public meetings were well attended, and a wide range of views was expressed. The Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), among others, held seminars to discuss the report on PPPs. That supplemented the Executive-led discussions.
The Executive encouraged all organisations and individuals who have an interest in the matter to respond. The review and the consultation involved a social partnership approach. Our policy-making process must be inclusive. Both the review and the consultation exercise included representation from the public, private, voluntary and trade union sectors, and their contribution will be invaluable in assisting the Executive to formulate their policy in that area. We are keen that Members’ views should be brought to bear in formulating our policy framework. We realise the importance of the issue for the future provision of public services, and we are all aware of the current deficiencies in public service provisions. All of the options available, as expressed during the consultation and today’s debate, will be considered when addressing the inadequacies. We welcome the opportunity for an informed debate on how best we can proceed to address the key issues — considering the options for public-private partnerships and how we might most effectively avail of them.
The views expressed today, and the responses to our consultation, will contribute to our work on a policy framework for public-private partnerships in the coming weeks.

Mr Francie Molloy: I thank the Speaker’s Office, staff and Members for their expressions of sympathy following my recent bereavement.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel welcomes today’s debate on public-private partnerships (PPPs), and I thank the working group for the report that has led to this debate. The First Minister outlined in detail his response to the report and commented on the role that the Committee has played.
The Committee tabled a motion on 3 July 2001 on its report and the recommendations from its inquiry into the use of public-private partnerships. I recognise that the scope of the original debate has moved on, and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement on the reinvestment and reform initiative in May 2002, it is now focused on public-private partnerships. Taking that into account, the Committee and I see this debate as an opportunity for the Assembly to consider the full range of procurement and financial options available to the Executive on the wider issues associated with whatever method is selected.
I wish to begin by pointing out some of the figures given to the Committee on the infrastructure and public service deficits. All Departments require funding of £4 billion to £7 billion for capital projects in the next ten years, depending on the range of proposals and whether they are accepted. The bulk of the deficit is in three Departments — Education, Regional Development and Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Those Departments have programmes to deliver the priority areas in the Programme for Government. Some £6·5 billion of the infrastructure and public service deficit lies there, and those Departments have a shortfall of £5 billion in their capital budgets over the next ten years as regards the projects identified as requiring capital investment.
Assuming that departmental capital budgets remain the same, the Department of Education will have £1 billion conventional public finance available to meet its assessed need of £2·1 billion over the next ten years. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will have £0·6 billion available to meet its assessed need of £2 billion over the next ten years, and the Department for Regional Development will have £1·8 billion available to meet its assessed need of £4·4 billion over the next ten years.
In May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a borrowing facility available in the reinvestment and reform initiative, and £125 million was made available for the financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04. It is worth taking into account that that is approximately one third of the underspend over the past year. The Executive used those resources, some of their own in the Executive programme fund for infrastructure, and underspend resources carried forward through end-year flexibility. In total, £270 million was allocated for capital projects in the next two years. Those allocations will advance other projects in the pecking order for consideration for funding.
The Committee is grateful to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for the early copy of the draft strategic investment and regeneration of sites Bill. The Committee notes that the Bill will be introduced by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and that the Committee of the Centre will undertake the Committee Stage. The Committee will want to consider the relationship between the strategic investment body, the procurement board and the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Committee will also want to be assured that the significant costs of those initiatives will represent good investment and value for money.
It is easy to advocate that we accelerate the capital investment programme. All Members would like that to happen. However, as the Minister said, infrastructure and better public services must be paid for. Many questions about that investment remain unanswered, and the Assembly faces many problems. Which projects will be selected? How will they be prioritised? How will they be financed? How will the financial options be funded? How will funding affect future resource position manoeuvrability? Is the project flow realistic and achievable by the construction industry? That matter was dealt with in the Committee’s report. Will projects be properly managed, guided and monitored to ensure the efficient use of resources?
The Committee’s report made several recommendations. It considered those issues during its inquiry into the use of public-private partnerships. It investigated a range of financial models, such as bonds and not-for-profit organisations. It also heard evidence from the advocates and opponents of public-private partnerships. The Committee concluded that the preferred financial option is public finance. However, it still sees a role for public-private partnerships in the right circumstances. It concluded that core needs had to be taken into account and that all contracts had to be properly investigated and fully secure.
However, the Committee also decided that public-private partnerships were not the only game in town. One of its recommendations in July 2001 was that a unified, service-wide investment strategy be established for financing and managing the infrastructure deficit. The Committee envisaged that expertise would be brought together to create a centre of excellence, which would ensure that contracts were fully investigated; that one Department would not overlap another; that each Department would not do its own thing; that a partnership would be established to ensure a long-term investment strategy, rather than simply the short-term secondment of civil servants from one branch to another; that the Minister would be given responsibilities for leading and delivering the investment strategy; and that a social partnership would be created to support it. The Committee also envisaged that it might be similar to that which exists in the South of Ireland, where trade unions play an important role in putting together a social partnership.
The working group will have an important role. The strategic investment body will have the role that is described in the report. Its job will be to ensure that public-private partnership contracts are put together properly. The Committee would welcome an explanation from the Minister of the relationship between the strategic investment body and the procurement board.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel will soon provide a substantial response to the Executive’s consultation exercise. As the basis of its response, a detailed analysis has been carried out to compare the recommendations of the Committee’s report that was published in July 2001 with those of the report of the public-private partnership working group, which was published in May 2002. The Committee will meet on 17 September 2002 to agree a formal response to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The public-private partnership working group has built upon the findings of the Committee’s inquiry. Progress has been made in several areas, including the statement of principles and setting the future direction of PPPs.
When he launched the consultation process, ‘Financing Our Future’, in the Assembly on 21 May 2002, the Minister of Finance and Personnel correctly pointed out that the reinvestment and reform initiative, which was announced in May 2002, provides a new context for consultation. The draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill provides some detail of how the investment body will relate to Departments. That relationship will be key in the Executive’s development of an effective investment strategy. The Committee is interested in hearing from the Minister whether the reinvestment and reform initiative will mean that less use is made of public-private partnerships and whether the low-cost loan from the Treasury will have any implications for the use of relative-cost private finance. The Committee’s report recommended public finance as the best way to secure public administration. If new money is available more cheaply than are PPPs, will it be seriously considered?
The Committee has been disappointed by the slow progress in developing the high-level investment strategy that the strategic investment body took so long to set up. The need for an overarching investment strategy is all the more important given the new borrowing facility and the fact that there are now several games in town. Clarity is required as to the relationships between the Departments, the strategic investment body and the Department of Finance and Personnel, and their respective roles in relation to PPPs.
Although the Committee recommended that a Minister lead the investment strategy, it remains unclear where responsibility lies. It is important that one Minister or Department has an identified lead role so that everyone knows where they stand.
During the inquiry, the Committee found it difficult to determine evidence of value for money. That is not to say that there is no value for money, but it did not come out during the inquiry. There may be good projects that will deliver value for money in the long term — some of the contracts are still in the very early stages — but there may also be evidence to suggest that they will not.
Since the report in July 2001, Departments have retained their capital projects and pressed forward with their own PPP projects, without the significant degree of strategic oversight or planning from the centre, which was one of the inquiry’s recommendations.
I will conclude with the main questions that the Committee for Finance and Personnel wants answered. What further detail is available on the reinvestment and reform initiative? What are its implications for funding from the departmental expenditure limit? When will a strategy embracing all the financial options be delivered? What are the relationships between the Departments, the strategic investment body and the procurement board? What are their respective roles as regards PPPs? Will responsibility for investment be delegated to a specific Minister? Do the Executive have further evidence of the value for money achieved by PPPs? Can some light be thrown on the capital resources currently held by Departments? What short-term capital expenditure plans and PPP plans do individual Departments hold, and how do they fit in to the strategic investment plan? Has any assessment been made of the longer-term funding implications of those projects?
I thank the Ministers for the debate. I urge the Committees to take on board the points that have been made and to consider how financing and funding decisions will impact on future Programmes for Government and Departments in the longer term.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Our main goal in this matter should be to attain social justice and sustainable development. Public services cannot be seen as a mere safety net. Rather, it must be accepted that a vibrant economy and a healthy society cannot be built unless we lay essential foundations. Investment of our shared resources will be of benefit to all.
Most Members will agree that the issue is not whether we need to find more money for public services, but how to find it. We must explore the options available to generate greater resources for social and economic development and seek to raise the bulk of the required resources through directing graded taxation. However, spreading society’s financial burden fairly, according to means, is not an easy task. The limitations of political powers in the North mean that we cannot raise enough money in that manner.
Everybody is aware that Northern Ireland faces a huge infrastructure problem and needs to examine these issues. Even the most vocal critics of PPPs accept that we need to make significant improvements in roads, the transport system, hospitals, schools and college estates. Yet when we take our own resources into consideration, we simply do not have enough funds to address those issues in the traditional way. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that we need new approaches and ideas when considering our capital needs. In that context, the ‘Financing Our Future’ review must be welcomed. We must have mechanisms in place that can guarantee public benefit in terms of value for money, transparency and accountability. Such schemes must be compatible with our commitment to social justice and the targeting of social need.
There has been criticism of PPPs, and more will probably be expressed in this debate. It is proper to acknowledge that some of the fears are genuine and should be addressed. For instance, do workers face job insecurity after the establishment of a PPP? If so, we must take that on board and, if necessary, tighten legislation to protect workers. The stability and the future of public-sector employees must remain paramount, and I hope that that will be given priority.
Given that more than 20 PPP projects have been completed in Northern Ireland, it is now time to look closer to home and consider what can be learned from the achievements. Simply to examine the UK experience is not the most appropriate way of establishing which measures are necessary to achieve a successful outcome in Northern Ireland.
We must ensure that the private sector does not have undue influence in determining which projects are suitable for partnership financing. Government policy and strategy must remain in the hands of the public through their representatives, and not become subject to the needs of company shareholders.
The reinvestment and reform initiative seeks to establish a strategic investment body to examine strategic infrastructure and investment in Northern Ireland and to suggest innovative approaches to managing and financing the Executive’s infrastructure programme.
We must develop ways of building innovative partnerships across society that can fund the necessary development. We must examine new and different public-private models as well as other alternatives, from Government bonds to options involving the voluntary sector and not-for-profit organisations. That would preclude concerns about benefits for shareholders, plough profits back into services and promote sustainability for provider organisations, many of which provide valuable services to the public.
New models of financing must genuinely lever in additional finances for public services, rather than merely substituting one mechanism for another without clear long-term benefits for the public. If PPPs are to work, they must not replace public spending but add to its capacity. We must seek to combine the best models of social partnership with the best models of financial partnership to deliver better public services to the whole community.

Mr Peter Weir: Much has been made of the changed environment since the last debate on the matter in July 2001, when the Committee for Finance and Personnel published its report on public-private partnerships. Much has changed — the reinvestment and reform initiative has been introduced, and proposals have been put forward to establish a strategic investment body. We have witnessed a poacher-turned-gamekeeper transformation. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee at that time, who shared the Committee’s view, has now risen to become one of the people who will help to implement this. There are also the proposals in the ‘Financing our Future’ document.
However, while there have been changes at that level, much has remained the same. We are still faced with a large infrastructural deficit, which is as great as it was in July 2001. It is clear that although a range of options could be used to make good that deficit, PPPs have a large part to play. PPPs are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end to ensure that we get the best services. Some would argue that in our efforts to finance that massive infrastructural deficit, not enough is being done to reduce administration costs in Northern Ireland. Leaving that argument aside, it is important that we get the best value for money in our projects and that the right structures be in place.
In July 2001, the Committee for Finance and Personnel established a range of principles, structures and recommendations, which have remained — more or less — the same. Although it may not be appropriate to pat ourselves on the back, many of the principles established by the Committee are as relevant today as they were a year ago. However, the manner of their implementation has been a mixed bag. Today, we are at the interim stage, and we should therefore indicate what we wish to see emerging from the consultation and what should, ultimately, be carried forward by the strategic investment body. We are still at the recommendation stage.
There has been some movement, such as the public-private partnerships working group that has already been referred to. There has also been movement in setting out the principles of PPP projects; in technical guidance; on the public service comparator; and in the definition of PPPs. However, the Committee feels that progress has been slow in several areas. There were a couple of assumptions running through the Committee’s recommendations. First, it was assumed that it is important that we learn from others. I appreciate that it is not simply a question of taking what has happened in England or the Republic of Ireland and transferring it to Northern Ireland. However, as I indicated at the time, a wise man learns from his mistakes: a wiser man learns from someone else’s mistakes. It is important that we apply the lessons learned from what has taken place elsewhere, and that from the beginning, through the strategic investment body, we take the opportunity to get the structures right. That is vital.
One principal area of concern not properly answered was the recommendation that one Minister be given overall responsibility for driving the initiative. For example, the motion stands in the names of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I am sure that both Departments have valid reasons to do that, but it is not clear which Department will have responsibility for spearheading the initiative. It is vital that that point is clarified soon.
It is essential that we get the powers of the strategic investment body right from day one. Moreover, there is the matter of the relationship between the strategic investment body, public-private partnerships and the current procurement body. It is important that our structures and practices are correct. According to the evidence that the Committee received, everyone agrees that a strategic investment policy is necessary, and that a strategy must be in place to implement the policy. However, when the powers of the strategic investment body are determined, and proposals are in place for its practice, we shall be in a better position to judge whether that has been achieved.
Furthermore, in the light of the evidence received, and since Northern Ireland has always been behind the rest of the UK and other places, it will be especially important that an appropriate flow of deals is achieved as regards proposals on strategic investment and public-private partnerships. We must not have a situation in which so many projects come on to the market at the same time that companies are overwhelmed and are unable to deal with them, or that they come through so slowly that it will be uneconomical for local companies to bid for them. In such a situation, the level of expertise required for one project would mean that costs were not suitably apportioned among several projects. We must ensure that the balance is correct.
The strategic investment body will provide the opportunity to pool resources, especially those of the Civil Service, so that areas of expertise can be concentrated. A level of expertise will be developed, for example, in contracts, and we shall be able to learn from the range of projects available. A review of legislative powers will be necessary to ensure that no impediment to contracts is caused, for example, by the need for powers that do not already exist.
I am reluctant to comment further because the Committee for Finance and Personnel will make its full response available soon. Today’s debate is on an interim level, and to ensure that the right conclusion is reached, the Executive must clarify a range of issues.
Such is the scale of investment needed, through public-private partnerships and other means, that if the issue is handled wrongly — and it is to be hoped that it will not be — the people of Northern Ireland will pay for our mistakes for generations to come. It is, therefore, vital that lessons are learned now; that, in the face of opposition, flesh is put on the bones of the strategic investment body; and that the initiative is got right at that stage.
I urge the Ministers responsible to consider the Committee’s report and ensure that its proposals and recommendations are considered, so that the necessary lessons are learnt and they get it right from day one.

Mr Seamus Close: The Assembly last debated PPPs in July 2001 in response to a report by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It is worth emphasising that the Committee made several important, pertinent and salient recommendations on the implementation and progress of PPPs. Today, we are debating a different report that does not take away from those recommendations. It builds on them and is a weightier report. It is not more important, and it does not point in a significantly different direction. It simply deals with the matter in a more colourful way.
It is to be regretted that, in the past fourteen and a half months, progress on PPPs has been slow, and that should be subject to criticism. Even after fourteen and a half months, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has said, several significant questions have yet to be answered properly, and out in the big, bad world, the problems continue to increase.
In his introduction, the First Minister said that it is important to hear Members’ views. With due respect to the First Minister, if he is looking for my views, I refer him to Hansard Volume 11, No 10, pages 399 to 401 of 3 July 2001. Those remain my views. I could waste the Assembly’s time by regurgitating them but, because nothing has changed, I shall not. The Executive must accelerate the snail-like pace that they appear to have adopted. Our constituents do not want to see more reports. They want, and need, to see action, and that should not be interpreted as my saying that we should rush into PPPs willy-nilly. We cannot be accused of doing that.
The recommendations give the vital building blocks that must be put in place — they should have been put in place before now. However, when I read the report, I wonder whether even a strategic plan, upon which to build, exists, and therein lies my major criticism.
I hope that we shall get answers to those vital questions as a result of today’s debate; who knows, the Minister might answer them in his summing up. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel concluded his summary by posing fundamental questions that must be addressed urgently. The Committee feels that, if we do not get answers to those questions, the matter must be driven forward, and one Minister must be given control of doing so strategically and positively. If that decision has not yet been made, we must ask where we are going.
I hope to lay to rest the myth, which can arise through debates such as this, that PPPs per se can solve the funding deficit. That is a load of rubbish: PPPs do not solve the funding deficit, and I am delighted to see the Minister of Finance and Personnel nodding in approval. The only way to solve a funding deficit is to increase revenue or reduce expenditure. Public-private partnerships are an alternative way to provide facilities.
Fourteen and a half months ago, several Members said that PPPs were not a panacea and were not the only show in town. In those fourteen and a half months, the reinvestment and reform initiative has clearly demonstrated that we should recognise that fact. Public money is the cheapest, and that must be borne in mind. If we decide to use the strategic investment board or other bodies, they must make clear decisions about the selection and prioritisation of the different deficits that must be funded, such as schools, roads, water, et cetera. We must see that prioritisation carried out, and we need it done yesterday. We certainly need it before another fourteen and a half months elapse.

Ms Jane Morrice: When the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister originally announced the establishment of the borrowing facility — the reinvestment and reform initiative that Mr Close mentioned — I said that a large "handle with care" stamp was necessary; that same stamp is necessary for PPPs. That message has been reiterated by all contributions to today’s debate.
The public are still confused by pick-and-mix financial policy. They make all sorts of assumptions: that PPPs are confined to the private-finance initiative, which in fact finances only major capital projects, and that PFI offers something for nothing in the context of public expenditure restraint. However, no matter how projects are financed, in the absence of user charges they remain funded by the public purse. Members have made that point repeatedly today. We risk locking the public sector in Northern Ireland into long-term financial commitments that offer poor value for money for the taxpayer. That is the argument of short-term pain versus long-term gain.
It has been recognised today that the infrastructure in Northern Ireland, specifically for regional development, health, and education, is under tremendous pressure and that dependence on public expenditure alone means that the range and the quality of services provided will be insufficient, both now and in future. PPPs may be one way to bridge the gap.
The assertion that the private sector has skills that make it inherently more efficient than the public sector is not always backed up by evidence. If this were the case, far from there being a preference for traditional procurement, there would be a preference for private sector solutions, with no reference to public sector comparators.
Principles and economics must also be considered. MrClose stated that public money is always the cheapest money, and we should not forget why that is so. Public money should always have the good of the public at heart, which is why it is the best and cheapest way to progress. Some people think that a public service that is funded for profit by the private sector is incompatible, and that Government should provide schools, hospitals, roads, public transport and sewerage systems. Are PPPs and PFIs a legitimate and cost-effective way to increase the pool of money that is available for those services? The dangerous approach of "buy now, pay later" cannot be overstated or ignored.
PPPs should be chosen as a financing option only when they provide better value than conventional long-term public finance. A holistic approach must be adopted, and an assessment of comparative costs must include the social and environmental impact as well as cost-effectiveness considerations.
We urge the Executive to give priority to the identification of long-term and dependable funding streams to sustain the valuable public services that the voluntary and community sector provides.
Patricia Lewsley and others spoke about the guarantees that are required for a level playing field for employees. Trade unions and Members have expressed fears that a two-tier workforce may emerge. Contractors are employing new workers on poorer terms and conditions than workers who have transferred from the public sector. Ms Lewsley also stated that the legislation must be tightened to take that issue on board.
PPPs have not been highly contentious in the Republic of Ireland, so the Executive should consider the Southern experience and take a broader view.
The partnership approach has been highly successful; for example, between local councils and the not-for-profit companies — the voluntary sector. That approach has been important to our communities, because PPPs are at the cutting edge and work successfully in the voluntary sector. Bryson House provides local councils with valuable expertise and information, and its kerbside recycling schemes are at the cutting edge.
Information on the ‘Financing Our Future’ consultation process and its implementation timetable would be appreciated.

Mr Roy Beggs: Northern Ireland has a huge infrastructure deficit, and different estimates have been made about its extent, which appears to be more than £7 billion over the next 10 years.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel indicated that the preferred source of finance is public finance, because it is generally provided at lower interest rates than those available through the private sector. We should address that important issue, because there would be no point in passing funding over to the private sector if that were the only consideration. However, it is not the only consideration. No one has claimed that we could finance our deficit of some £7 billion over the next 10 years from within existing public expenditure. We shall have to think outside the box and, increasingly, consider alternatives.
Public-private partnerships can bring benefits. We have heard about improvements in the design of schools, and about the ease of the management of ongoing maintenance arrangements. There are also benefits to be had from encouraging Departments and organisations to think outside the box. For example, Departments could perhaps be encouraged to share facilities with other Departments, and to increase the use of those facilities. That form of funding could increasingly encourage communal use, and a variety of other uses.
There are many ways to finance those activities. We have the traditional route of public expenditure; we have the private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships; and we now have the reinvestment and reform initiative. We should not be tied to any one route. We must consider each means of finance on its merits, and decide which one will best address the urgent community needs that exist. As Members have said, we must also bear in mind that, ultimately, as when someone takes on a mortgage or hire purchase agreement, it must be paid for. Therefore, we must consider the long-term implications of each option.
I concur with the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s view that PPPs can be a valuable tool and means of investment, and should not be ruled out. I welcome the First Minister’s comments, which reflect the views of the Committee, that value for money has to be demonstrated clearly over the life of a project.
I joined the Committee for Finance and Personnel only this year, and I have already heard favourable comments about public-private partnerships. For example, I heard some during a visit to the Scottish Parliament, and I also heard about positive experiences in the Republic of Ireland. I learnt that, on occasion, even though public finance was available, PPPs were preferred because of other perceived benefits.
Northern Ireland has had limited experience to date of PPPs compared with other UK regions. We need an advisory group that will consider in detail the overarching investment strategy. I expect that to be done by the strategic investment body.
How can we be assured that that body will have the necessary experience and expertise? That will be critical in determining options for funding. I agree with Patricia Lewsley that we should learn lessons from our existing PPPs. There should be a review of our experience to date. Although it is limited, there must be positive lessons to be learnt. I ask the Minister to ensure that any early lessons are built on in future decision-making.
I welcome the reinvestment and reform initiative and the move to establish the strategic investment body. However, further details are needed, and we need to keep the process moving forward. Ultimately, projects must be delivered. For example, the widening of the M1, which is of concern to many commuters, and the new cancer centre will be financed by the initiative. When will more projects be delivered, and when will our constituents begin to see more benefits from these initiatives?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before I call Mr Byrne, I remind the House that we must break at 2.30 pm for Question Time. Mr Byrne will be allowed to resume after 4.00 pm, if necessary.

Mr Joe Byrne: It is generally recognised that public investment needs are a major problem in Northern Ireland. That point has been highlighted since the Assembly came into being. Three Departments in particular — Education, Health, and Regional Development — have major capital investment needs, and we have suffered major handicaps in those areas over many years.
Public resources are insufficient to meet those capital investment needs, and that is regrettable. However, that is the reality that the Assembly faces. Most parties would like to see public capital needs provided for through the public purse, but, unfortunately, that is not possible under the limited devolved Budget. The big question is whether private-finance capital sources can be attracted to finance capital budgets or projects in those areas.
There have been several private finance initiative (PFI) projects, and, more recently, public-private partnerships in Britain and, indeed, Northern Ireland that have resulted in new schools, colleges and offices. That has brought welcome development to different localities and communities. However, it is fair to say that there has been some genuine concern and criticism of how some PFIs have worked, including the accumulated cost of servicing the payback on some projects. Many trade unions are greatly concerned about how workers are often asked to pay a price for such projects.
One of the key principles is value for money, which must be crucial in assessing a PFI or public-private partnership project. The rate of return on a private finance initiative must be sufficient, but not excessive. There has been genuine criticism of some of the excessive returns in some projects, and the rate of return should reflect the prevailing safe loan capital environment — the repayment is assured to the public purse, so that risk is limited and controlled.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
The reinvestment and reform initiative outlined by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May is a welcome proposal that can be used to get necessary, upfront capital investment money for infrastructure projects. The strategic investment board has obvious merit in facilitating private finance schemes for public investment projects. The public wants to see new schools and hospitals as soon as possible, and there is a great imperative that private finance schemes should be processed in a more efficient and effective way. There is genuine concern that the entire administration of projects is long-winded, cumbersome and leads to excessive costs.

Mr Speaker: It would be unfair to ask any of the other Members to start a speech for the sake of a few seconds, only to have to interrupt themselves in full flow. The House will take its ease until Question Time, which is in less than one minute.
The debate stood suspended.

Education

Question 7, in the name of Mrs Eileen Bell, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Burns Review

1. asked the Minister of Education to give an assessment of the response to his consultation on the Burns proposals.
(AQO70/02)


We adopted a multi-stranded approach to the consultation to ensure that all sectors of the community had an opportunity to participate, and I have been encouraged by the response. I held 28 meetings with key interests during the consultation period. More than 650 written submissions were received from education partners, churches, schools, parents, teachers, pupils, political parties and the business community. More than 550 detailed response booklets were received from schools, training organisations and community groups. More than 200,000 adults completed the household response form, and research was conducted into the views of young people. I will publish a summary of the responses to the consultation in early October for everyone to see and consider.
Ms Ramsey:
I am also encouraged by the response. After the recent media speculation that there has been intensive canvassing by grammar schools regarding the survey, how will the Minister ensure that the outcome is totally representative of all opinions?


We had a good response to the household forms; 200,000 people represent a substantial body of opinion in anyone’s book. However, we must put that into context — it represents 16% of the adult population. The household form is one strand of a multi-stranded approach to consultation. We adopted that approach to ensure that everyone’s views were heard. The public’s views are also represented in the responses from schools, parents, pupils, the Churches, community groups, voluntary organisations, the political parties and our education partners. All those views will be taken into account.


Does the Minister recognise that the Burns proposals are particularly controversial? Does he know that more than 1,000 constituents in Strangford have written to me to express their opposition to the proposals? Now that he has confirmed that he will publish his own conclusions in October, he owes it to the public — and I ask him to do it today — to advise us when he is likely to present those proposals to the Committee for Education. Should the Committee reject his recommendations, will he go over its members’ heads and bring them before the Assembly?


It is important that everyone, including myself, take time to consider the responses to the consultation exercise in detail. I want to hear the views of key stakeholders in education on the responses to consultation and how best to progress the post-primary review before I make proposals on the way forward. Any new arrangements and their implementation will be shaped by the responses to the consultation and must build on the growing consensus that has emerged during the post-primary review. I will announce details of the timetable for the next stages of the review when I publish a report on the responses to consultation in early October.


I thank the Minister for the way in which he outlined the handling of the consultation process. The proposals that emerge from that process will be of greater importance. Does the Minister plan to bring those proposals to the Assembly before the end of the year?


Through the consultation process and my meetings with key interests and partners, there are strong signs of a growing consensus on the need for change. I want to build on that emerging consensus. I am firmly of the view that we can work together to bring about new arrangements for post-primary education, to the benefit of all.
Decisions on the way forward — which is what Tommy Gallagher is asking about — will depend on the outcome of the consultation, and I intend to consult the Assembly and the Executive about any changes. It may also be necessary to give effect to new legislation, and that will be subject to the approval of the Assembly.
Children are the key focus, and they will continue to be my prime concern throughout the review of post-primary structures. The debate should rise above party-political lines and the interests of individual institutions. Any changes, and the timing of their introduction, will depend on the outcome of the consultation. My Department will maintain the existing arrangements and phase in changes in a planned and orderly manner in order to safeguard the education of children in schools.
Throughout this process the intention is to improve the educational experience of children and to improve standards, and my Department will work with the boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), boards of governors, principals and teachers to achieve that.
The Assembly has a critical role to play, and, given the events of the summer, I have been encouraged by the high level of debate and the important contributions from all the political parties and our education partners. I am pleased how the situation is moving along, and my key object is to continue to build on the consensus that I believe already exists.

School Transport Strategy

2. asked the Minister of Education whether he intends to urgently review the current school transport strategy in the light of the inequities that it is causing.
(AQO26/02)


The current transport arrangements were introduced in 1997 to constrain the escalating costs of home-to-school transport and to release resources to safeguard funding for the classroom. The revised arrangements restrict transport provision to pupils who have been unable to gain a place in any suitable school within statutory walking distance of their homes. Suitable schools are defined as the established educational categories of controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish-medium, and, in the grammar sector, denominational and non-denominational. Parents are not obliged to send their children to the nearest suitable school or to any particular school, but, where they do not qualify for assistance, the responsibility to provide transport falls to the parents.
I recognise that some aspects of the current policy concern parents and public representatives. My Department is reviewing the present arrangements and will consult with all relevant bodies in due course.


A similar answer was given the last time that the question was tabled — namely, that the Department was reviewing matters. We need some urgent action, particularly in the light of the earlier question on the Burns review, given that there is such inequality in the current system. For example, a parent on a low income from the Markets area or the Short Strand sending a child up the Ravenhill Road by bus to school — which has to done for safety reasons and because of the sectarian nature of the area that is passed through — has to pay the bus fare. It costs at least 55p a trip. That amounts to over £200 a year, and if there are three children involved it can add up to £600.
On the other hand, a parent of a child living on Malone Road, or in Carryduff, outside the three-mile area, gets such transport for free. That results in an unequal system, where low-income families have to pay more. Likewise, a parent whose child has passed the 11-plus faces the same problem.


The question from the hon Lady is clear.


Could we please have a date for the end of this review and some free school transport in the future —


Order.


I appreciate the concerns articulated by Ms Monica McWilliams and, indeed, by other elected representatives. It is an important issue. There will be a wide-ranging review, which will consider the impact of the 1997 policy change, along with other issues that have emerged since then. Ms McWilliams is correct in saying that the review will need to have regard to the report of the review body on post-primary education; it will also need to take account of the recommendations of the Committee for the Environment’s report on home-to-school transport.


I am concerned, as is Ms McWilliams, that we are hearing words rather than having action. Does the Minister intend to take any action to address the situation in which students over 16 years of age in full-time education and financially dependent on their parents must pay adult fares? Is that not unfair and discriminatory? Their situation has not changed; only their age has.


The review provides an opportunity for everyone to raise his or her constituents’ concerns, and this matter can also be considered during it. However, at the same time, there will be widespread appreciation that it is sensible, when dealing with such issues, for us to recognise that the review must also have regard to the report on post-primary education and the Committee for the Environment’s report on home-to-school transport, on which we have had several debates.


I tabled a similar question some months ago, and the answer too was quite similar: there will be a review. I share the other Members’ concerns that we still have no date for that review. My worries are about primary schoolchildren and also about 16- to 18-year-olds. I understand that a review is under way involving the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Employment and Learning. Will the Minister consult those Departments when proposing any changes? It is very relevant. I believe that he is proposing a reduction of at least 50%, and for some primary schools that would be of great help.


We shall gladly consult those Departments.

Nursery Education

3. asked the Minister of Education to make a statement on the development of nursery education.
(AQO92/02)


In 1997, there were funded places for 45% of children in their immediate pre-school year in statutory settings. As a result of my Department’s pre-school education expansion programme, that rose to 85% in the 2002-03 school year in both statutory and voluntary settings. In the 2003-04 school year the programme aims to provide a place for every child whose parents wish it.


The overall growth in places is obviously to be welcomed. How many places are in existing controlled or maintained primary schools as opposed to in facilities which are seen to be completely open to all sections of the community? Is there not a danger that we have lost a major opportunity to promote integrated education for the under-fives?


I shall write to Mr Ford with the figures that he seeks. It is also important to point out that in the present provision there are undoubtedly many integrated settings in which children from all sections of the community enjoy a year’s pre-school education together. Growth in pre-school education for children in the year before formal education begins has mushroomed over the last few years. We have made tremendous strides, and we must constantly review how we continue that in the light of our having quite a strong integrated education sector. Parents increasingly choose to have their children educated together; I am conscious of and sympathetic to that trend.


When can Moorfields Primary School have its nursery unit?


He is stumped.


No, I am not stumped; not yet. My Department has been in contact with the North Eastern Pre-School Education Advisory Group on the subject, and I shall write to the Member about it.


Why has the Minister not taken the opportunity afforded by the Education and Library Bill to close the legislative loophole that allows two-year-olds a funded voluntary- or private-sector nursery place while many four-year-olds do not receive one? Would it not be better if he enabled educationalists to ensure that every child in his or her pre-school year received a funded place? The Minister could do that by moving an amendment, rather than simply hoping that those places will become available. The Minister might be able to give an assurance based on the assumption that a percentage of parents will not take up places, but there will undoubtedly be a spread in different areas.


Order. The Member’s question is clear, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the arguments.


Since the early 1970s, places in the statutory sector have been open to children from two years old to the lower limit of compulsory school age. It is, however, my intention to amend the legislation so that very young children, who gain little benefit from attending nursery schools or classes, will no longer be admitted. Such an amendment was not made to the current Bill because of the nature of the legislation. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce the local management of schools common funding formula.
I am aware, however, that the Committee for Education has raised that issue, and that departmental officials met the Committee last week. I want to await the outcome of the Committee’s report.

Centre for Autism

4. asked the Minister of Education to give an update on the progress of the centre for autism.
(AQO90/02)


Work on the centre for autism is progressing well. A project manager has been appointed to co-ordinate the work of all the agencies involved, prior to the appointment of a chief executive. A steering group has been established, including representatives from the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the North, and the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children in the South.
In particular, the steering group will consider legal issues such as purchase, ownership, governance and management of the centre, professional issues, access and health and safety issues, and ways of including parents and other interests in the planning process.


What is the current state of financing for the project? Have any resources been forthcoming from the Government of the Republic of Ireland?


We were given some £1·7 million from the Executive programme funds, which will contribute to the purchase of the site at the former St Joseph’s adolescent training centre in Middletown. I am confident that the Government in Dublin will make their contribution. I do not have any difficulties about achieving that. Our objective is to have the centre up and running in autumn 2003. Some months ago, people thought that that was an ambitious target, but I am confident that we will meet it. There is still work to be done, and many appointments to be made, but the work is well in hand. We will have to consider funding as we progress.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What other work has the Minister initiated to address autism?


I recently reported to the House on the outcome of the previous North/South Ministerial Council meeting. A joint working group on special education was set up under its auspices, which will focus initially on autism and dyslexia. Northern task groups on autism and dyslexia were established, and I launched the reports produced by those groups earlier this year. I welcome their challenging recommendations to all of us with responsibilities for the education of children with autism and dyslexia.
My Department has also organised separate conferences, to be held in September and November, which will progress the recommendations from the reports on autism and dyslexia. Those major events will involve relevant education and health professionals working together with parents of children with autism and dyslexia and representatives of voluntary organisations to help plan for provision. Those events will provide focal points for discussion on how best to take forward the recommendations from each report.
My Department and the Department of Education and Science are supporting a bid made to the Peace II funds by the Centre of Cross-border Studies, which will, if successful, provide cross-border exchange opportunities for teachers, principals, educational psychologists and inspectors working in special educational needs. The programme intends to promote dialogue and the exchange of good practice for professionals working with children with special educational needs.
I have recently become aware of the difficulties that many young people face in accessing appropriate day care or employment when they leave special schools. I therefore met the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister for Employment and Learning and relevant officials to consider what could be done. Officials from the three Departments will consider the matter fully, and they will put forward proposals on how best to improve the transition planning process and the options available to the young people.

Attacks on Schools

5. asked the Minister of Education to comment on the series of attacks on schools that occurred over the summer.
(AQO76/02)


My Department is aware of seven arson attacks on schools since the beginning of June. During other attacks on schools windows were broken — in one case in north Belfast there was a disgraceful attack in which hundreds of windows were broken in a controlled school. I deplore attacks on all schools. Schools must remain sanctuaries and should not be dragged into community conflict. Acts of vandalism serve no purpose and divert financial resources from the classroom, where they are needed most.
All children are entitled to the best possible education in good, modern, safe schools. Vandals try to deny them that right, and it is everyone’s responsibility to make it clear that attacks are unacceptable.


I agree that such attacks are reprehensible. Approximately how much funding is being diverted from the delivery of education?


I appeal to everyone in society to do his or her best to help to create a proper environment in and around schools to ensure that such attacks are stopped. I call for an immediate halt to attacks on all schools.
My Department does not have details of the cost of repairs to the schools affected, but such attacks put further pressure on funds, given the increased need for security measures in schools. For the five years until March 2002, additional resources of £5 million were made available to address basic security measures in schools, and a further £1 million has been made available this year. That money could be put to better use.


I note the Minister’s comments regarding pressure and the diversion of funding. Will he assure the House that the schools affected will not suffer financial difficulties because of the attacks, and that additional funding will be provided to address the damage so that resources meant for the classroom will not be diverted from where they are most needed.


There is a responsibility on Members to ensure that the limited funding available goes directly where it is needed — into the classroom. Undoubtedly, the disgraceful behaviour by a tiny minority in society has a detrimental effect on our children’s education. There is a responsibility on me, the Executive and every Member to ensure that we do everything in our power to get as many resources as possible for the education of our children. That is problematic considering the difficulties that many Departments are enduring as a result of the legacy of neglect and underfunding across all Departments over the past decades.
At the same time, the Department will do its best with its limited budget, and I will fight for more resources for the education and library boards, the CCMS and other education partners.

Burns Questionnaire

6. asked the Minister of Education how many postcode areas had not received the Burns questionnaire by the beginning of June 2002, and to explain the reasons for the delay.
(AQO88/02)


The household response form was distributed to more than 670,000 households. Distribution took longer than anticipated due to the massive scale of the exercise, and, unfortunately, a few postcode areas did not receive their forms by the beginning of June. Those areas were BT1, BT2 and BT3 in Belfast; BT24, which is Ballynahinch; BT25, which is Dromore; and BT40, which is Larne. However, those areas received their forms by the week commencing 24 June 2002. The deadline for responses was 28 June 2002, but, in the light of the distribution difficulties, my Department considered all responses received up until the end of July 2002.


Does the Minister accept that many people found the personal questions on the back of the form intrusive and offensive, and does he accept that this will have affected the response rate? Will he give an assurance that the results of the consultation will take account of all responses regardless of whether these questions were answered?


I received no information to the effect that society had revolted over the quite legitimate questions that were posed in the household response form. All the responses will receive the important consideration that they deserve given that some 200,000 households saw fit, and were bothered enough, to return the forms. The Department is very pleased with how the exercise has gone, and people should consider that we are evaluating not only the household response form exercise, but the many other strands of the consultation. As a result of the exercise, we have given society a unique opportunity to contribute to the shaping of our future education system. Good work has been done. Let us try to build consensus to ensure that the key people in all of this, the children, receive the best possible education.


Does the Minister accept that a response from 200,000 households out of a circulation of more than 600,000, which is 33%, is a response of over 100%, if we take into account the number of families with children in education? Why has he sought to downplay the responses that he has received and introduce yet another layer of consultation by asking the key stakeholders to respond to a consultation on the consultation? The Minister is ducking and diving because he knows that the people have hampered his drive towards comprehensive education in Northern Ireland. Will he assure the House that when he finally comes up with some proposals, he will seek the cross-community consensus of the House rather than try to drive it through by ministerial decree?


We have had a good response to the household form. A response by 200,000 people represents a substantial body of opinion, though still that constitutes only 60% of the adult population, and that is why the five strands of the consultation were so important to ensure that everyone’s views are represented. The views of the public are also represented in the responses from schools, community groups, churches and education partners. I find it a bit rich that the Member takes it upon himself to speak for the education partners.
I have had 28 positive and constructive meetings with everyone who is involved in the process. Much good work was done over the summer, and I am confident that in bringing about the essential change that everyone knows must take place, I will do so with the full good heart and co-operation of those people.
They are genuine people; they are good people. They may be on different sides of the argument, but they all want to do everything in their power to ensure that our education system grows stronger no matter what changes are made. No one in the House can speak for the education partners. They are good, decent people, who will work in partnership with me to ensure that change takes place sensibly.


I regret that other Members who wish to raise questions will find that we have run out of time.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

I wish to inform the House that question 14, standing in the name of MrsEileenBell, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Antrim Area Hospital

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether the casualty unit at Antrim Area Hospital is being used as a makeshift ward, and, if so, what plans she has to improve the bed-blocking system there.
(AQO3/02)


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Bhí sé riachtanach ar roinnt ócáidí d’othair in Ospidéal Ceantair Aontroma fanacht sa roinn taisme agus éigeandála i ndiaidh na cóireála tosaigh go dtí gurbh fhéidir iad a ligean isteach i mbarda. Ba í an phríomhchúis leis sin ná an mhoill i ligean amach othar nach raibh cúram de dhíth orthu a thuilleadh in ospidéal, mar aon leis an líon méadaithe iontrálacha éigeandála.
I mí Iúil 2002, chuir mé maoiniú ar fáil do bharda breise 24 leaba, agus le trí bliana anuas méadaíodh an bhunáit altranais mhaoinithe i roinn taisme agus éigeandála an ospidéil. Ag tabhairt aitheantais don bhrú a chruthaíonn moill a bheith ar ligean amach, fuair mé £19·1 milliún breise do sheirbhísí cúraim phobail anseo sa bhliain reatha.
It has been necessary, on some occasions, for patients at Antrim Area Hospital to remain in the accident and emergency department after initial treatment until it is possible to admit them to a ward. The principal reason for that is the delayed discharge of patients who no longer need hospital care, combined with an increased number of emergency medical admissions.
In July2002, I made funding available for an additional 24-bed ward, and the funded nursing establishment in the accident and emergency department of the hospital has been increased in the past threeyears. I acknowledged the pressures created by delayed discharges, and I secured an additional £19·1million for community care services here in the current year. That sum will enable boards to increase care home payments, implement free nursing care from next month and support 1,000more people in community settings.


Does the Minister agree with DrBrian Patterson’s comments on behalf of the British Medical Association (BMA)? He said:
"It is not enough to just pour money into the NHS. It must be targeted to where it is most needed, within the context of a coherent strategic plan, otherwise finance disappears".
If she accepts that opinion, will she coherently — not using the gobbledygook that we have heard to date — outline her strategic plan for the Antrim Area Hospital and say how she will provide beds and staff to tackle the bed-blocking and waiting crises? None of the measures that she mentioned in her answer has, to date, solved the problems or fulfilled her promises.


I shall continue to make the problem of delayed discharges a priority, together with the restoration of domiciliary care as a cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Studies have shown that that is a fundamental measure in any strategy for dealing with the issue to which the Member referred.
Moreover, each board is committed to examining good practice and innovative schemes. The boards have identified schemes that are specifically designed to reduce admissions to long-term care, prevent inappropriate admissions to hospitals and facilitate early discharge. The Northern Board, in meeting its targets of 1,000 additional people to be treated in community settings, indicated that 75% of the additional support will be made available to elderly people, and that will have an impact on the problem.
There are no easy answers. I have made the case for substantial additional funding, some of which has now been secured and is finding its way into the service. Developing better services will provide a framework in which significant improvements can be made to the provision of acute services here. Significantly, I announced in the summer that Antrim Area Hospital will gain 24 additional medical beds at a cost of £3·47million, a new chemotherapy unit costing £1·58million, a new CT scanner costing £0·65million, and four additional dialysis stations costing £0·35million.
We must put capacity back into community services and hospitals to ensure that equipment is up to date and that staff are available. Since I became Minister, I have addressed in a sustained and strategic manner issues that had not received significant investment during direct rule.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline what she is doing to improve community care services, so that people who are able to use such services can do so rather than availing themselves of hospital care, thereby easing bed blocking?


I have made a provision of £19·1 million. Each board has suggested ways in which community care can be improved. I carried out a review of community care, which has led to information on good practice being collated. Boards have been asked to take that into account when examining the implementation of the work to ensure that an additional 1,000 people in community settings are supported. That will help to address problems in the community, prevent inappropriate admissions to hospital and facilitate early dismissal.


The Minister has advised that some £19 million of additional money has been directed towards the easement of bed blocking. However, does she acknowledge that there is a problem in the Homefirst Community Trust area, which serves United Hospitals, in that it receives less funding for community care per capita? The inability to move patients from hospitals into the community and provide care packages adds to the waiting lists.


The £19·1 million is for community settings and will include funding for nursing homes and free nursing care. However, the bulk of the money will be used to ease bed blocking. There are difficulties with delayed discharge in United Hospitals, which, according to provisional figures for the end of June 2002, have the highest number of patients awaiting discharge. I allocate funding to boards, and the boards decide on the allocation of funding to the trusts based on population needs.

Cancellation of Cancer Operations

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many cancer operations were cancelled last year due to lack of available intensive care unit beds.
(AQO25/02)


Níl teacht furasta ar an eolas seo san fhoirm inar iarradh é agus níorbh fhéidir é a fháil ach ar chostas díréireach.
That information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.


I am disappointed by the Minister’s answer. That information should be available because cancer patients are being told to prepare for operations that require intensive care beds, only to be told that their operation has been cancelled.
My question is based on the case of an elderly woman who was admitted to the Ulster Hospital. On four occasions she prepared for an operation by fasting so that pre-operative medication could be administered, and on four occasions her operation was cancelled. She was sent home, told to fast, and to wait for a telephone call. A message cannot be sent out that the Health Service will tolerate such practice. Members must be told how many operations were cancelled in the past year because no intensive care beds were available.


That detailed information is not available because of the way in which it is collected and collated. The cancellation of operations causes anxiety for cancer patients and their families. However, all trusts prioritise patients with suspected or diagnosed cancer, and they take all possible measures to minimise delays. Trusts have reported that cancer operations are rarely cancelled because intensive care beds are unavailable.
That will not be of much comfort to the small number of people who have been affected. However, although the Department does not collect statistics centrally, it is a matter that trusts prioritise and on which they take all possible action. Among other tasks, they ensure that procedures are in place to reschedule operations as soon as possible. Since I became Minister, I have taken considerable care to increase the number of high-dependency beds and intensive care beds that are available.


I share Ms McWilliams’s response to the Minister’s reply. It is disappointing that those answers are not forthcoming. Anyone who has cancer, or whose life is at risk, deserves a proper explanation as to why his or her operation has been cancelled, whether it be due to the lack of an intensive care bed or to the lack of a surgeon. That came through loud and clear in the latest waiting list report. More operations are being postponed — sometimes for six months. I want the Minister to inform the House of those figures as soon as possible.


There is a major difference between patients not being told the reason why their operation has been postponed and my not having that information collected centrally. The fact that such information is not collected centrally does not in any way suggest that patients are not told why their operations have been cancelled.
I wanted to give an answer that was not based on information that trusts were able to give me from their own knowledge. That answer is that operations are scheduled by prioritising patients who have suspected or diagnosed cancer. It is rare for a cancer operation to be cancelled for that reason. Since 1999, when I became Minister, there has been significant expansion in the number of intensive care and high-dependency unit beds. It has considerably reduced the problems caused by the lack of availability of critical care beds. I accept that, occasionally, during peak periods, it is possible that all intensive care and high-dependency unit beds can be filled, which can result in urgent operations being postponed. Although such procedures are usually rescheduled quickly, I am, of course, not happy that any operation can be affected by the lack of such beds.


With regard to the lack of intensive care unit beds, will the Minister clarify whether the major problem lies with the facility infrastructure or with the lack of staff? Will she also explain what action she is taking to remedy the problem?


As I have said, considerable work has been done to increase the number of intensive care and high-dependency unit beds. One of the first tasks that I undertook to do when I became Minister was to ask the Chief Medical Officer to review intensive care services. All 10 additional intensive care beds recommended by the Chief Medical Officer have been brought on-stream. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is clear that intensive care beds are available and staffed to support patients who require such care. However, the demand for those beds occasionally exceeds availability, and some operations might be temporarily delayed. As I said, immense action has been taken, given the cost of bringing on-stream both intensive care and high-dependency unit beds. It is not simply a question of funding; it is also a question of staff. When the Department examines how it can develop better services and the profile of each of the hospitals, it will also consider where intensive care and high-dependency provision needs to be.

Disabled Young People Leaving Education

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what assessment she can make of the difficulties faced by disabled young adults leaving full-time education, and to outline how she intends to address the issue.
(AQO80/02)

Day Care for Young People Leaving Special Schools

9. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many young people who left special schools this summer have been provided with (i) full-time; (ii) part-time; and (iii) no day care by health and social services trusts.
(AQO95/02)

Day Care for School-Leavers with Learning Disabilities

13. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether she plans to provide additional day-care services for school leavers and young adults with learning disabilities in the Dungannon area.
(AQO94/02)


Le do chead, a Cheann Comhairle, freagróidh mé ceisteanna 3, 9 agus 13 le chéile ós rud é go mbaineann siad leis an cheist chéanna.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall take questions 3, 9 and 13 together, as they relate to the same issue.
Tá sé tábhachtach go mbíonn teacht ag aosaigh óga mhíchumasacha ar thacaíocht agus ar sheirbhísí fóirsteanacha nuair a fhágann siad oideachas lánaimseartha. Thiocfadh dó gur teacht é seo ar oideachas, oiliúint agus fostaíocht bhreise a bheadh i gceist, chomh maith le teacht ar ionaid lae aosach nó scéimeanna gníomhaíochta lae eile a reachtálaíonn iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta.
Éilíonn ‘Tosaíochtaí le haghaidh Gníomhaíochta 2000-03’ ar bhoird agus ar iontaobhais leanstan ar aghaidh ag forbairt seirbhísí chúram lae agus seirbhísí faoisimh do dhaoine le míchumas foghlama. Ar 3 Meán Fómhair bhuail mé leis an Aire Oideachais agus leis an Aire Fostaíochta agus Foghlama le plé a dhéanamh ar cad é mar is féidir lenár Ranna agus lena ngníomhaireachtaí oibriú le chéile le freastal níos fearr a dhéanamh ar riachtanais na ndaoine óga seo. Iarradh ar fheidhmeannaigh tuairisc a thabhairt dúinn i mí na Samhna le moltaí.
It is important that disabled young adults have access to the appropriate range of services and support when they leave full-time education. That may be access to further education, training or employment, as well as access to adult day centres or other day activity schemes run by health and social services trusts. Priorities for action require boards and trusts to continue to develop the range of day-care and respite services for people with learning disabilities.
On 3 September, I met the Minister of Education and the Minister for Employment and Learning to discuss how our respective Departments and their agencies can work together to better meet the needs of those young people. Officials have been asked to report to us with proposals in November. Information on the numbers of young people who left special schools this summer, and the type of day care provided by health and social services trusts, has been placed in the Library.
As regards the development of day-care provision in the Dungannon area, I understand that the Southern Health and Social Services Board gave Armagh and Dungannon Health and Social Services Trust £68,000 in 1999-2000 for that purpose. A further £75,000 was allocated in 2002-03. The trust advises that the money was used to develop services in each of the four centres in the Dungannon area, especially the Aughnacloy day centre and the Oakridge Social Education Centre. The trust has reported that it is able to meet the day-care needs of special school leavers in that area.


Does your Department require additional funding from the Executive if full day-care services for people with learning difficulties are to be developed?


I have bid for additional resources in the next spending round. Additional funding is needed for day care and, indeed, for a whole range of other health and social services. However, I was able to allocate a further, recurrent £300,000 to boards in June for wheelchair and day-care provision.
Given the pressures across the spectrum of health and social services, it is inevitable that difficult decisions must be taken about the allocation of funding. However, it is health and social services’ responsibility to provide day care for those young people who are unable, because of their disability, to access further education, training or employment. Many young people do not want a day-care place and aspire to do the same things as their non-disabled peers.


I thank the Minister for her response to my question, although I regret that she could not supply the statistics for which I asked.
No matter what the Minister might say about young people who may or may not want a place in day care, is it not a fact that there is a huge demand — indeed, requirement — for day-care places, both from young people with learning disabilities and from their parents? It is not a crisis that is thrust upon the Minister at the last minute, as people tend to reach the age of 19 gradually over a period of years. Why can priority not be given to that important area when other services, such as acute hospitals, seem to get a much easier acceptance from the Department?


In relation to the Member’s regret about the provision of information, I have placed that information in the Library. Members must accept that I am restricted by time when answering questions, and that asking specific questions with more than one part, which requires detailed information, makes that rather difficult.
Six people are currently not receiving day care. Of those, one is due to receive day care shortly, initially part-time, but that will be increased to full-time care as soon as possible; one was referred to the trust only on 4 September and has yet to have a needs assessment; and another person’s parents were adamant that they did not want any day-care arrangements.
As I have said, I accept that additional funding is needed, and I have given additional funding to boards this year. Like all other Ministers, I must consistently bid for funding, and I shall continue to do so. I have given much more in that area than has been given for quite some time, although I accept that much more needs to be done.


I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that a cross-departmental approach will be taken. Will her Department take the lead in examining the issue of young people with disabilities who have left full-time education or specialist schools? Will she examine the quality of the accommodation in day-care centres, the facilities and equipment, the number of support staff available, and training provision for staff and parents?


The Minister of Education took the lead in organising our meeting with the Minister for Employment and Learning. I am happy to report that the discussion was positive. It was not a case of pass the parcel. We discussed how each Minister could contribute to the future of people who leave special schools.
My Department’s remit covers the provision of services for those who are unable to access further education, training or employment because of disability. I have included the expansion of day-care services as a service development priority this year, and some of the additional funding allocated to boards for the development of community services is available for that purpose. However, it is important that we examine how our respective Departments and agencies can work together to better meet the needs of those young people.


Does the Minister agree that no other society forces its young people out of full-time education at the age of 19? Although many of those young people have the bodies of 19-year-olds, they can have mental ages of seven or eight. Where else are children forced out of full-time education at that age? Why are those young people discriminated against by not being allowed to continue in full-time education? Many adult centres are totally inappropriate for children of that age. They fossilize rather than further themselves, while other children are permitted to develop. Can the Minister find a way to give those children the same access to education, learning and employment that other children have?


I cannot say who does or does not have the right to education, because that is not within my area of responsibility. However, the Ministers and officials at the meeting made it clear that we want to examine overall needs and centre our work on the needs of individuals to ensure that they do not fall between two stools — or in this case three, given that three different Departments are involved.
I also accept that, although facility-based day care may meet the needs of some people, provision must offer choice. Boards, therefore, prefer to develop a range of day care with several providers, including those from the voluntary sector, to develop innovative, locally based schemes, which have been particularly beneficial in some areas. That is a more inclusive response to the day-care needs of today’s young people.

Ambulance Service Grievance Procedure

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, subsequent to delays in the processing of a grievance procedure relating to the shift rota at Kilkeel ambulance station, whether the Ambulance Service is required to adhere to any standards for the processing of such procedure.
(AQO78/02)


Tá a cuid nósanna imeachta inmheánacha féin ag an tSeirbhís Otharchairr le déileáil le gearáin fostaithe. Leagann siad sin amach amchlár soiléir mar threoirlíne le déiléail le céimeanna éagsúla na nósanna imeachta.
Tuigim go raibh moill dhosheachanta ann roinnt uaireanta i bpróiseáil gearáin faoi phatrúin sealanna a thóg foireann Stáisiún Otharchairr Chill Chaoil níos luaithe i mbliana. Tharla an mhoill mar gheall ar chastacht na ceiste agus cionnas nach raibh fáil ar go leor foirne le painéal achomhairc a chur le chéile ag an am.
The Ambulance Service has its own procedures for dealing with grievances raised by employees. Clear timetables are set as guidelines to deal with various stages of the procedures. I understand that earlier this year there were several unavoidable delays in the processing of a grievance about shift patterns that was raised by staff at Kilkeel ambulance station. Those delays were partly because of the nature and complexity of the issue and partly because of the unavailability of key staff to constitute an appeals panel during the period in question. Although the grievance was not upheld, the Ambulance Service has given the staff at Kilkeel an undertaking to review urgently the shift patterns.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer, and I am delighted to hear of the review. Will the Minister ensure that management listens to those at the coalface of accident and emergency care, and takes seriously their recommendations to improve the service rather than stick to the old, familiar ways? They are inadequate and endanger the welfare of patients.


Given the decision to refer the matter of shift patterns to the joint consultative negotiating committee for urgent consideration next month, it is clear that the service wishes to listen to staff, and that it accepts that there should be fair treatment and a consistency of approach for all staff.

Breast and Cervical Screening

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether she will consider offering breast and cervical screening to all women over 40.
(AQO93/02)


Faoi láthair, tugtar cuireadh do gach bean idir 50 bliain d’aois agus 64 bliana d’aois dul faoi scagthástáil cheirbheacsach gach trí bliana. Ní thacaíonn toradh an taighde atá ar fáil go nuige scagthástáil a thabhairt isteach do mhná faoi 50. Seo dearcadh an Choiste Scagthástála a thugann comhairle do na hAirí Sláinte anseo agus i Sasana, Albain agus sa Bhreatain Bheag.
The programme invites women between the ages of 50 and 64 for breast screening every three years. To date, research evidence available does not support the introduction of breast screening for women under 50. That is the view of the screening committee, which advises Health Ministers here, in England, in Scotland and in Wales.


I thank the Minister for her answer. What was the date of the most recent figures given to her Department? Would new figures not prove that the detection of more women over 40 might be relevant to the question that Monica McWilliams asked earlier about operations?


The reason for not introducing breast screening for women under 50 is that, in the view of the screening committee, there is a difficulty. The evidence available was assessed, and it is not at all clear that its introduction would lead to better detection. Mammograms, or X-rays of the breast, in women under 50 are much more difficult to interpret compared to those of women over 50. The breast tissue in women under 50 is more dense, thus making the X-ray difficult to read. Furthermore, the consistency of breast tissue in pre-menopausal women changes throughout each month, and that could result in an unacceptable level of false positives and false negatives.


Will the Minister examine why the breast-screening service does not apply to women over 64?


The extension of the breast-screening programme to women aged between 65 and 70 would increase the workload by approximately 40% and would require additional staff and finance. It is to be hoped that, in the coming year, I will be able to allocate funding for that purpose.


We have run out of time for questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Finance and Personnel

Question 2, in the name of Mr John Dallat, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Needs and Effectiveness Evaluation Studies

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on the current position of the needs and effectiveness evaluation studies.
(AQO86/02)


Five needs and effectiveness evaluations are being considered by the relevant Assembly Committees. They cover health and social care, education, financial assistance to industry, housing and vocational education and training. Further work has been undertaken on English expenditure figures provided by the Treasury. Such figures give us the comparators against which to assess our spending. Departments are being advised of the outcome of that work so that it can be taken into account in the consideration of the material.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)


The needs and effectiveness study now with the Committee highlighted that the Health Service is seriously underfunded. Will that be reflected in the forthcoming Budget?


The needs and effectiveness evaluation reports are important documents to be considered when finalising the forthcoming Budget, and they will help the Executive to make the best use of their resources. Health is an important priority, which has been emphasised in previous Budgets. The priority that we give to health and the results of the needs and effectiveness evaluations must be taken into account when we decide the Budget allocations.

Spending Review

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the key elements of the spending review and the implications for Northern Ireland.
(AQO101/02)


The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the outcome of the national spending review on 15 July 2002, and the Executive are considering its implications for Northern Ireland and how best to allocate the additional resources. The spending review provided Northern Ireland with additional resources, based on the Barnett formula, of approximately £148 million for 2003-04; £507 million for 2004-05; and £930 million for 2005-06. Northern Ireland also received non-Barnett additions for ring-fenced items such as the European Union Special Support Fund for Peace and Reconciliation (EUSSPPR). A draft Budget containing the Executive’s assessment and proposals will be presented to the Assembly on 24 September 2002.


Will additional resources target the Assembly’s agreed priority areas?


The Executive’s position report presented to the Assembly on 5 June 2002 outlines the key issues that affect public services. Based on the comments received from departmental Committees and other interested parties, the Executive are considering the best allocation of resources. As I said earlier, the Budget will be presented next week.
I will outline the process thereafter. The draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget will be presented next week. In October and early November the Committee for Finance and Personnel will take evidence from other Committees on the draft Budget. That will be followed by a take-note debate on the subject, and the revised Budget will be presented to the Assembly for debate and vote in early December.

Wet Weather Payments for Farmers

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what consultation has taken place with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on wet weather payments for farmers.
(AQO99/02)


I met the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development last week, and she raised the issue of wet weather payments for farmers. Her Department is reviewing the situation and will be unable to assess the position until the autumn, when the growing season has ended. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and I have agreed that she will keep the issue under review, and, indeed, she has written to Executive Colleagues to advise them of the matter.


I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development raised the issue only last week; perhaps she did so because she knew that there would be a question to be answered this week. Is the Minister of Finance and Personnel aware of the severe problems that farmers have faced, and still face, as a result of the wet weather earlier this year? Does he realise that harvests are substantially down on previous years and that farmers are in hardship and crisis? What assistance can he offer to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development so that she can deliver help to the rural community?


I am aware of the situation from my own observation and through direct contact with members of the farming community. I am sure that the Minister did not first consider wet weather payments last week. She advised me that she was reviewing the matter then, but that followed ongoing consideration of the matter by her and her officials in recent months. As I suggested in my initial answer, when the position becomes clear, then, and only then, can decisions be taken about allocations under the wet weather payments scheme.


The farming industry has suffered badly as a result of various diseases over the past few years, and the situation has been made much worse this year by the atrocious weather. Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel assure the House that if the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development agrees that there should be an application to the European Commission for wet weather payments, she will have his Department’s full support? Should such an application to Brussels be successful, will he tell the House whether it will be funded entirely from the European Commission, entirely from the Northern Ireland allocation, or from both? If a wet weather payment scheme proceeds, will payments be made to the agriculture industry generally in Northern Ireland or to individual farmers?


I remind the Minister that he should answer only one of those questions.


I thank the Member for the three invitations to speculate on what action would be sought from the Executive on a situation that might arise. I hesitate to become involved in such speculation, but in my previous response I said that I am aware of the situation that has been affecting the agriculture industry. However, my Colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development must advise me about the precise situation as regards wet weather payments.


I will try to ask a question that Mr Taylor may have left out. There are currently no central EU funds from which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development can bid for aid. Will the Minister, therefore, assure the Assembly that he will be sympathetic to any bids from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to address the problem?


My role is to consider bids by all my Colleagues. Bids from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development will be given careful and sympathetic consideration, in line with that approach.

Water Charges

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail (a) any plans to introduce water charges; and (b) whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a view on water charging; and to make a statement.
(AQO112/02)


There are no plans to introduce water charges. The Minister for Regional Development is considering the future organisation of the Water Service. His proposals will have important implications for the future financing and structure of water and sewerage services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not directly expressed a view on water charging here.


Is there European pressure on the Minister to introduce water charges? Will he take into account the TSN policy and the effect of the imposition of water charges on those with larger families who use more water, and those who live in deprived areas? It is important that services should be freely available, as charges would be detrimental to them.


I am aware of the European Directives, but responsibility for responding to Directives on water quality and sewerage lies with the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of the Environment. As with all the members of the Executive, I am aware of the need to bear the TSN policy in mind, whenever or wherever policies are being developed.


Does the Minister agree that the introduction of water metering would conserve water? Does he also agree that it would dispel the myth, prevalent throughout Northern Ireland, that people receive their water free of charge?


That question must be directed to the Minister responsible for the Water Service, not the Minister of Finance and Personnel.


Will the Minister confirm that there are no current plans or intentions to introduce a system of direct water metering charges for domestic householders in Northern Ireland?


The consultation document on the review of the rating system includes a section on the future financing of the Water Service. Having read it, they will be aware that the Executive have ruled out any proposal for the introduction of water meters.

Strategic Resources Shift

6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what plans are being developed to ensure a strategic shift in resources across Departments in 2003-04 and future years.
(AQO84/02)


The Executive are considering the development and annual revision of the Programme for Government, which will inform our budgetary decisions, and seek to develop a collective direction involving agreed priorities, based on our assessment of where the greatest needs lie across the 11 Departments. We will take account of the outcome of the national spending review and the responses to the consultation that followed the publication of the Executive’s June position report. Next week, a draft Budget containing our assessments and proposed spending plans will be presented to the Assembly, alongside the revised Programme for Government. At that stage, Members and Committees will have a full opportunity to engage in the process before the revised Budget is presented to the Assembly for a debate and vote on it in early December.


I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Am I to take it from his response that this plan will end the large underspending of the past couple of years? Will it ensure that those Departments that need the money will get it, rather than have certain Departments bidding for more funding than they need?


If Mr Kelly is implying that any funds are allocated without proper consideration of the business plans associated with the expenditure in question, I must dispel that belief. Before the summer, I presented the Assembly with an outline of how I intend to deal with the problem of underspending. Several Members, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel in particular, have been quite exercised about this, and action to address it is under consideration as part of the process of formulating the draft Budget.

Financing our Future

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for a timetable on the implementation of ‘Financing our Future’.
(AQO103/02)


On 21 May, I announced to the Assembly the Executive’s launch of a consultation exercise, ‘Financing our Future’, which focused primarily on the report by the working group on the opportunities for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Northern Ireland. The consultation period, lasting some 18 weeks, has, to date, been proactive and constructive. It has included several public meetings and discussions with organisations, including representatives from the trade union movement, the business community and the voluntary sector. The process continues with today’s debate and ongoing engagement with Committees. The consultation period ends on 20 September, when detailed consideration and an evaluation of comments and written submissions will begin. The findings will be submitted to the Executive later this year, and they will make a final decision on a policy framework for PPPs in Northern Ireland.


Has consideration been given to the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report on PPPs?


I thank the Member for her supplementary question, which reminds us of the significant work undertaken by the Committee on public-private partnerships. The Committee’s report made a useful and significant contribution to the discussion on the use of PPPs to fund public services. As part of the consultation process for the working group’s report, account was taken of responses to the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report. In formulating their final policy on the opportunities for using public-private partnerships, the Executive will take account of the PPP working group’s report and the Committee’s report.

Procurement Policy

8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what progress has been made in implementing the new procurement policy.
(AQO102/02)


Since the announcement of the new procurement policy on 27 May 2001, the procurement board has met and agreed its terms of reference and approved the establishment of a procurement practitioners’ group, which will assist the development of policy. It has also approved a work plan for the central procurement directorate for the period up to March 2003. The next meeting of the board is scheduled for early December, at which a plan for implementing all recommendations of the procurement review team will be tabled for discussion.


I acknowledge this bold and imaginative initiative by the Minister — an effort to ensure that public procurement becomes a mechanism to address long-term unemployment and disadvantage. However, the Minister will be aware that there were only four proposals for pilot schemes to the public procurement board two weeks ago, despite the fact that 20 were hoped for. Can the Minister reassure the Assembly that permanent secretaries will redouble their efforts to ensure that contracts of sufficient volume, value and impact are identified and forwarded to the public procurement board for consideration as a pilot scheme?


This is an important issue, and the idea of working through a series of pilot schemes is central to achieving the social dimension to procurement policy — helping the long-term unemployed in particular. As suggested by the procurement review team, Departments have initially been asked to submit capital work projects with a value above the European Union tendering threshold of £3·8 million, or service projects with a value above £500,000. Some Departments have stated that they have no such projects available in the current financial year, and so far only five projects have been identified for inclusion in the scheme. My officials are working closely with all Departments to ensure that we achieve our target of 20 projects.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister for Regional Development, in a written reply to Mr Attwood, appears to be quite sceptical, if not openly hostile, to the idea of using procurement policy for some of the benefits that the Minister has outlined. What authority will the Minister or the procurement team have in this regard, given that the Department for Regional Development is a huge spender and is heavily involved in public procurement?


Views differ on this issue, but it is clearly set down and endorsed by the Executive that procurement policy should have this clear social dimension. I will be working with my officials and ministerial Colleagues to ensure that this objective is achieved across all Departments. I am conscious of the considerable scale of expenditure for which the Minister for Regional Development is responsible.

Review of Rating Policy

9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an update on the review of rating policy.
(AQO119/02)


I announced the launch of the consultation stage of the review of rating policy on 27 May 2002. A dedicated web site has since gone online, and three public conferences have been held. There has also been a series of meetings with groups, organisations and district councils. Furthermore, evidence has been given to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. Consultation ends in mid-September, but I have decided to extend the deadline for Committees and district councils until 7 October. The consultation period will be followed by an assessment of responses. I hope to present a report on identified options to the Executive later this year. If significant change is endorsed, the legislative process will commence in 2003.


It is important that the public have a say on the issue. Only last week, I took part in a seminar run by the Federation of Small Businesses in the Long Gallery, at which those present participated eagerly and expressed their views. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the public response to the consultation so far?


I appreciate the curiosity about statements at those meetings. Members will fully appreciate that it is taking officials some time to collate and tabulate all the reactions, comments and recommendations made during the consultation.
I will, however, give a flavour of what has transpired. In June three public consultation conferences were held in Enniskillen, Belfast and Derry to discuss domestic and non-domestic rating issues. Representatives from local businesses, district and borough councils, public sector bodies and the voluntary sector attended the conferences, as did members of the public. Total attendances were disappointing. However, since the web site went live, it has been visited on more than 17,400 occasions, resulting in the consultation paper being downloaded more than 7,000 times. Clearly, society is availing of electronic communication to a greater extent than it is attending consultation meetings.
Several meetings were held with specific interest groups, including the Association of Local Government Finance Officers, charitable groups, the business sector and trade union groups. Two forums were held during August, with the landed professions — estate agents, valuers and surveyors — and with district council personnel through the Northern Ireland Local Government Association.
In addition, by mid-September the head of the Rating Policy Branch will have addressed council meetings in Fermanagh, Castlereagh and Omagh. Meetings have also been held with the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, the Confederation of British Industry, the Northern Ireland Independent Retailers’ Association, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Association and the Federation of Small Businesses. A wrap-up conference has been organised for 23 September in Belfast.
We have attempted to consult widely, and many organisations and groups have approached us seeking the attendance of officials to explain the issues. I trust that the consultation process has been as comprehensive as possible during the past few months.


The Minister has outlined that a wide range of business interests and professional groups have responded to date. Can he advise Members of the degree of the response from domestic ratepayers to date? Would he acknowledge that a greater public response would be expected if more details were available of how the changes might ultimately affect individual households? Why was such indicative information not included in the consultation paper?


Although many organisations might appear to represent the non-domestic sector, every representative is resident somewhere, and, I imagine, interested in domestic rates. All aspects of the review were considered. I am reasonably assured that as comprehensive an opportunity as possible has been afforded to both domestic and non-domestic interests to address the issues.
The amount of downloading from and the number of visits to the web site show the high volume of interest across both areas.

Ouseley Report on the Review of the Senior Civil Service

10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether he will make public the findings of the Ouseley Report on the review of the Senior Civil Service.
(AQO98/02)


The report and consultation document on the appointment and promotion procedures for the Senior Civil Service was made available to the public on 9 July as part of the consultation process. It is not a question of when the report will be published; it was published some time ago.


When will the Minister’s Department act on the report’s findings? The longer it fails to act, the more the staff in the Civil Service will be discriminated against when they reach 60.


It is impossible for the Minister to give Mr McCarthy a full answer in the time allowed, and I am sure that he will receive a written answer.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to refer me to the Minister for Regional Development to find out whether the Minister of Finance and Personnel agrees with a concept under water charges?


It is entirely appropriate for a Minister to refer you to another Minister if he feels that that is right.


To find out whether he agrees with something?


Thank you, Mr Close.

Education

Mr Speaker: Question 7, in the name of Mrs Eileen Bell, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Burns Review

Ms Sue Ramsey: 1. asked the Minister of Education to give an assessment of the response to his consultation on the Burns proposals.
(AQO70/02)

Mr Martin McGuinness: We adopted a multi-stranded approach to the consultation to ensure that all sectors of the community had an opportunity to participate, and I have been encouraged by the response. I held 28 meetings with key interests during the consultation period. More than 650 written submissions were received from education partners, churches, schools, parents, teachers, pupils, political parties and the business community. More than 550 detailed response booklets were received from schools, training organisations and community groups. More than 200,000 adults completed the household response form, and research was conducted into the views of young people. I will publish a summary of the responses to the consultation in early October for everyone to see and consider.
Ms Ramsey:
I am also encouraged by the response. After the recent media speculation that there has been intensive canvassing by grammar schools regarding the survey, how will the Minister ensure that the outcome is totally representative of all opinions?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We had a good response to the household forms; 200,000 people represent a substantial body of opinion in anyone’s book. However, we must put that into context — it represents 16% of the adult population. The household form is one strand of a multi-stranded approach to consultation. We adopted that approach to ensure that everyone’s views were heard. The public’s views are also represented in the responses from schools, parents, pupils, the Churches, community groups, voluntary organisations, the political parties and our education partners. All those views will be taken into account.

John Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that the Burns proposals are particularly controversial? Does he know that more than 1,000 constituents in Strangford have written to me to express their opposition to the proposals? Now that he has confirmed that he will publish his own conclusions in October, he owes it to the public — and I ask him to do it today — to advise us when he is likely to present those proposals to the Committee for Education. Should the Committee reject his recommendations, will he go over its members’ heads and bring them before the Assembly?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is important that everyone, including myself, take time to consider the responses to the consultation exercise in detail. I want to hear the views of key stakeholders in education on the responses to consultation and how best to progress the post-primary review before I make proposals on the way forward. Any new arrangements and their implementation will be shaped by the responses to the consultation and must build on the growing consensus that has emerged during the post-primary review. I will announce details of the timetable for the next stages of the review when I publish a report on the responses to consultation in early October.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I thank the Minister for the way in which he outlined the handling of the consultation process. The proposals that emerge from that process will be of greater importance. Does the Minister plan to bring those proposals to the Assembly before the end of the year?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Through the consultation process and my meetings with key interests and partners, there are strong signs of a growing consensus on the need for change. I want to build on that emerging consensus. I am firmly of the view that we can work together to bring about new arrangements for post-primary education, to the benefit of all.
Decisions on the way forward — which is what Tommy Gallagher is asking about — will depend on the outcome of the consultation, and I intend to consult the Assembly and the Executive about any changes. It may also be necessary to give effect to new legislation, and that will be subject to the approval of the Assembly.
Children are the key focus, and they will continue to be my prime concern throughout the review of post-primary structures. The debate should rise above party-political lines and the interests of individual institutions. Any changes, and the timing of their introduction, will depend on the outcome of the consultation. My Department will maintain the existing arrangements and phase in changes in a planned and orderly manner in order to safeguard the education of children in schools.
Throughout this process the intention is to improve the educational experience of children and to improve standards, and my Department will work with the boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), boards of governors, principals and teachers to achieve that.
The Assembly has a critical role to play, and, given the events of the summer, I have been encouraged by the high level of debate and the important contributions from all the political parties and our education partners. I am pleased how the situation is moving along, and my key object is to continue to build on the consensus that I believe already exists.

School Transport Strategy

Prof Monica McWilliams: 2. asked the Minister of Education whether he intends to urgently review the current school transport strategy in the light of the inequities that it is causing.
(AQO26/02)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The current transport arrangements were introduced in 1997 to constrain the escalating costs of home-to-school transport and to release resources to safeguard funding for the classroom. The revised arrangements restrict transport provision to pupils who have been unable to gain a place in any suitable school within statutory walking distance of their homes. Suitable schools are defined as the established educational categories of controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish-medium, and, in the grammar sector, denominational and non-denominational. Parents are not obliged to send their children to the nearest suitable school or to any particular school, but, where they do not qualify for assistance, the responsibility to provide transport falls to the parents.
I recognise that some aspects of the current policy concern parents and public representatives. My Department is reviewing the present arrangements and will consult with all relevant bodies in due course.

Prof Monica McWilliams: A similar answer was given the last time that the question was tabled — namely, that the Department was reviewing matters. We need some urgent action, particularly in the light of the earlier question on the Burns review, given that there is such inequality in the current system. For example, a parent on a low income from the Markets area or the Short Strand sending a child up the Ravenhill Road by bus to school — which has to done for safety reasons and because of the sectarian nature of the area that is passed through — has to pay the bus fare. It costs at least 55p a trip. That amounts to over £200 a year, and if there are three children involved it can add up to £600.
On the other hand, a parent of a child living on Malone Road, or in Carryduff, outside the three-mile area, gets such transport for free. That results in an unequal system, where low-income families have to pay more. Likewise, a parent whose child has passed the 11-plus faces the same problem.

Mr Speaker: The question from the hon Lady is clear.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Could we please have a date for the end of this review and some free school transport in the future —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I appreciate the concerns articulated by Ms Monica McWilliams and, indeed, by other elected representatives. It is an important issue. There will be a wide-ranging review, which will consider the impact of the 1997 policy change, along with other issues that have emerged since then. Ms McWilliams is correct in saying that the review will need to have regard to the report of the review body on post-primary education; it will also need to take account of the recommendations of the Committee for the Environment’s report on home-to-school transport.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am concerned, as is Ms McWilliams, that we are hearing words rather than having action. Does the Minister intend to take any action to address the situation in which students over 16 years of age in full-time education and financially dependent on their parents must pay adult fares? Is that not unfair and discriminatory? Their situation has not changed; only their age has.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The review provides an opportunity for everyone to raise his or her constituents’ concerns, and this matter can also be considered during it. However, at the same time, there will be widespread appreciation that it is sensible, when dealing with such issues, for us to recognise that the review must also have regard to the report on post-primary education and the Committee for the Environment’s report on home-to-school transport, on which we have had several debates.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I tabled a similar question some months ago, and the answer too was quite similar: there will be a review. I share the other Members’ concerns that we still have no date for that review. My worries are about primary schoolchildren and also about 16- to 18-year-olds. I understand that a review is under way involving the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Employment and Learning. Will the Minister consult those Departments when proposing any changes? It is very relevant. I believe that he is proposing a reduction of at least 50%, and for some primary schools that would be of great help.

Mr Martin McGuinness: We shall gladly consult those Departments.

Nursery Education

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of Education to make a statement on the development of nursery education.
(AQO92/02)

Mr Martin McGuinness: In 1997, there were funded places for 45% of children in their immediate pre-school year in statutory settings. As a result of my Department’s pre-school education expansion programme, that rose to 85% in the 2002-03 school year in both statutory and voluntary settings. In the 2003-04 school year the programme aims to provide a place for every child whose parents wish it.

Mr David Ford: The overall growth in places is obviously to be welcomed. How many places are in existing controlled or maintained primary schools as opposed to in facilities which are seen to be completely open to all sections of the community? Is there not a danger that we have lost a major opportunity to promote integrated education for the under-fives?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I shall write to Mr Ford with the figures that he seeks. It is also important to point out that in the present provision there are undoubtedly many integrated settings in which children from all sections of the community enjoy a year’s pre-school education together. Growth in pre-school education for children in the year before formal education begins has mushroomed over the last few years. We have made tremendous strides, and we must constantly review how we continue that in the light of our having quite a strong integrated education sector. Parents increasingly choose to have their children educated together; I am conscious of and sympathetic to that trend.

Mr Gardiner Kane: When can Moorfields Primary School have its nursery unit?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: He is stumped.

Mr Martin McGuinness: No, I am not stumped; not yet. My Department has been in contact with the North Eastern Pre-School Education Advisory Group on the subject, and I shall write to the Member about it.

Mr Roy Beggs: Why has the Minister not taken the opportunity afforded by the Education and Library Bill to close the legislative loophole that allows two-year-olds a funded voluntary- or private-sector nursery place while many four-year-olds do not receive one? Would it not be better if he enabled educationalists to ensure that every child in his or her pre-school year received a funded place? The Minister could do that by moving an amendment, rather than simply hoping that those places will become available. The Minister might be able to give an assurance based on the assumption that a percentage of parents will not take up places, but there will undoubtedly be a spread in different areas.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s question is clear, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the arguments.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Since the early 1970s, places in the statutory sector have been open to children from two years old to the lower limit of compulsory school age. It is, however, my intention to amend the legislation so that very young children, who gain little benefit from attending nursery schools or classes, will no longer be admitted. Such an amendment was not made to the current Bill because of the nature of the legislation. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce the local management of schools common funding formula.
I am aware, however, that the Committee for Education has raised that issue, and that departmental officials met the Committee last week. I want to await the outcome of the Committee’s report.

Centre for Autism

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 4. asked the Minister of Education to give an update on the progress of the centre for autism.
(AQO90/02)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Work on the centre for autism is progressing well. A project manager has been appointed to co-ordinate the work of all the agencies involved, prior to the appointment of a chief executive. A steering group has been established, including representatives from the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the North, and the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children in the South.
In particular, the steering group will consider legal issues such as purchase, ownership, governance and management of the centre, professional issues, access and health and safety issues, and ways of including parents and other interests in the planning process.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What is the current state of financing for the project? Have any resources been forthcoming from the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We were given some £1·7 million from the Executive programme funds, which will contribute to the purchase of the site at the former St Joseph’s adolescent training centre in Middletown. I am confident that the Government in Dublin will make their contribution. I do not have any difficulties about achieving that. Our objective is to have the centre up and running in autumn 2003. Some months ago, people thought that that was an ambitious target, but I am confident that we will meet it. There is still work to be done, and many appointments to be made, but the work is well in hand. We will have to consider funding as we progress.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What other work has the Minister initiated to address autism?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I recently reported to the House on the outcome of the previous North/South Ministerial Council meeting. A joint working group on special education was set up under its auspices, which will focus initially on autism and dyslexia. Northern task groups on autism and dyslexia were established, and I launched the reports produced by those groups earlier this year. I welcome their challenging recommendations to all of us with responsibilities for the education of children with autism and dyslexia.
My Department has also organised separate conferences, to be held in September and November, which will progress the recommendations from the reports on autism and dyslexia. Those major events will involve relevant education and health professionals working together with parents of children with autism and dyslexia and representatives of voluntary organisations to help plan for provision. Those events will provide focal points for discussion on how best to take forward the recommendations from each report.
My Department and the Department of Education and Science are supporting a bid made to the Peace II funds by the Centre of Cross-border Studies, which will, if successful, provide cross-border exchange opportunities for teachers, principals, educational psychologists and inspectors working in special educational needs. The programme intends to promote dialogue and the exchange of good practice for professionals working with children with special educational needs.
I have recently become aware of the difficulties that many young people face in accessing appropriate day care or employment when they leave special schools. I therefore met the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister for Employment and Learning and relevant officials to consider what could be done. Officials from the three Departments will consider the matter fully, and they will put forward proposals on how best to improve the transition planning process and the options available to the young people.

Attacks on Schools

Mr Gerry Kelly: 5. asked the Minister of Education to comment on the series of attacks on schools that occurred over the summer.
(AQO76/02)

Mr Martin McGuinness: My Department is aware of seven arson attacks on schools since the beginning of June. During other attacks on schools windows were broken — in one case in north Belfast there was a disgraceful attack in which hundreds of windows were broken in a controlled school. I deplore attacks on all schools. Schools must remain sanctuaries and should not be dragged into community conflict. Acts of vandalism serve no purpose and divert financial resources from the classroom, where they are needed most.
All children are entitled to the best possible education in good, modern, safe schools. Vandals try to deny them that right, and it is everyone’s responsibility to make it clear that attacks are unacceptable.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I agree that such attacks are reprehensible. Approximately how much funding is being diverted from the delivery of education?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I appeal to everyone in society to do his or her best to help to create a proper environment in and around schools to ensure that such attacks are stopped. I call for an immediate halt to attacks on all schools.
My Department does not have details of the cost of repairs to the schools affected, but such attacks put further pressure on funds, given the increased need for security measures in schools. For the five years until March 2002, additional resources of £5 million were made available to address basic security measures in schools, and a further £1 million has been made available this year. That money could be put to better use.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I note the Minister’s comments regarding pressure and the diversion of funding. Will he assure the House that the schools affected will not suffer financial difficulties because of the attacks, and that additional funding will be provided to address the damage so that resources meant for the classroom will not be diverted from where they are most needed.

Mr Martin McGuinness: There is a responsibility on Members to ensure that the limited funding available goes directly where it is needed — into the classroom. Undoubtedly, the disgraceful behaviour by a tiny minority in society has a detrimental effect on our children’s education. There is a responsibility on me, the Executive and every Member to ensure that we do everything in our power to get as many resources as possible for the education of our children. That is problematic considering the difficulties that many Departments are enduring as a result of the legacy of neglect and underfunding across all Departments over the past decades.
At the same time, the Department will do its best with its limited budget, and I will fight for more resources for the education and library boards, the CCMS and other education partners.

Burns Questionnaire

Mr Danny Kennedy: 6. asked the Minister of Education how many postcode areas had not received the Burns questionnaire by the beginning of June 2002, and to explain the reasons for the delay.
(AQO88/02)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The household response form was distributed to more than 670,000 households. Distribution took longer than anticipated due to the massive scale of the exercise, and, unfortunately, a few postcode areas did not receive their forms by the beginning of June. Those areas were BT1, BT2 and BT3 in Belfast; BT24, which is Ballynahinch; BT25, which is Dromore; and BT40, which is Larne. However, those areas received their forms by the week commencing 24 June 2002. The deadline for responses was 28 June 2002, but, in the light of the distribution difficulties, my Department considered all responses received up until the end of July 2002.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that many people found the personal questions on the back of the form intrusive and offensive, and does he accept that this will have affected the response rate? Will he give an assurance that the results of the consultation will take account of all responses regardless of whether these questions were answered?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I received no information to the effect that society had revolted over the quite legitimate questions that were posed in the household response form. All the responses will receive the important consideration that they deserve given that some 200,000 households saw fit, and were bothered enough, to return the forms. The Department is very pleased with how the exercise has gone, and people should consider that we are evaluating not only the household response form exercise, but the many other strands of the consultation. As a result of the exercise, we have given society a unique opportunity to contribute to the shaping of our future education system. Good work has been done. Let us try to build consensus to ensure that the key people in all of this, the children, receive the best possible education.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that a response from 200,000 households out of a circulation of more than 600,000, which is 33%, is a response of over 100%, if we take into account the number of families with children in education? Why has he sought to downplay the responses that he has received and introduce yet another layer of consultation by asking the key stakeholders to respond to a consultation on the consultation? The Minister is ducking and diving because he knows that the people have hampered his drive towards comprehensive education in Northern Ireland. Will he assure the House that when he finally comes up with some proposals, he will seek the cross-community consensus of the House rather than try to drive it through by ministerial decree?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We have had a good response to the household form. A response by 200,000 people represents a substantial body of opinion, though still that constitutes only 60% of the adult population, and that is why the five strands of the consultation were so important to ensure that everyone’s views are represented. The views of the public are also represented in the responses from schools, community groups, churches and education partners. I find it a bit rich that the Member takes it upon himself to speak for the education partners.
I have had 28 positive and constructive meetings with everyone who is involved in the process. Much good work was done over the summer, and I am confident that in bringing about the essential change that everyone knows must take place, I will do so with the full good heart and co-operation of those people.
They are genuine people; they are good people. They may be on different sides of the argument, but they all want to do everything in their power to ensure that our education system grows stronger no matter what changes are made. No one in the House can speak for the education partners. They are good, decent people, who will work in partnership with me to ensure that change takes place sensibly.

Mr Speaker: I regret that other Members who wish to raise questions will find that we have run out of time.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that question 14, standing in the name of MrsEileenBell, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Antrim Area Hospital

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether the casualty unit at Antrim Area Hospital is being used as a makeshift ward, and, if so, what plans she has to improve the bed-blocking system there.
(AQO3/02)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Bhí sé riachtanach ar roinnt ócáidí d’othair in Ospidéal Ceantair Aontroma fanacht sa roinn taisme agus éigeandála i ndiaidh na cóireála tosaigh go dtí gurbh fhéidir iad a ligean isteach i mbarda. Ba í an phríomhchúis leis sin ná an mhoill i ligean amach othar nach raibh cúram de dhíth orthu a thuilleadh in ospidéal, mar aon leis an líon méadaithe iontrálacha éigeandála.
I mí Iúil 2002, chuir mé maoiniú ar fáil do bharda breise 24 leaba, agus le trí bliana anuas méadaíodh an bhunáit altranais mhaoinithe i roinn taisme agus éigeandála an ospidéil. Ag tabhairt aitheantais don bhrú a chruthaíonn moill a bheith ar ligean amach, fuair mé £19·1 milliún breise do sheirbhísí cúraim phobail anseo sa bhliain reatha.
It has been necessary, on some occasions, for patients at Antrim Area Hospital to remain in the accident and emergency department after initial treatment until it is possible to admit them to a ward. The principal reason for that is the delayed discharge of patients who no longer need hospital care, combined with an increased number of emergency medical admissions.
In July2002, I made funding available for an additional 24-bed ward, and the funded nursing establishment in the accident and emergency department of the hospital has been increased in the past threeyears. I acknowledged the pressures created by delayed discharges, and I secured an additional £19·1million for community care services here in the current year. That sum will enable boards to increase care home payments, implement free nursing care from next month and support 1,000more people in community settings.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister agree with DrBrian Patterson’s comments on behalf of the British Medical Association (BMA)? He said:
"It is not enough to just pour money into the NHS. It must be targeted to where it is most needed, within the context of a coherent strategic plan, otherwise finance disappears".
If she accepts that opinion, will she coherently — not using the gobbledygook that we have heard to date — outline her strategic plan for the Antrim Area Hospital and say how she will provide beds and staff to tackle the bed-blocking and waiting crises? None of the measures that she mentioned in her answer has, to date, solved the problems or fulfilled her promises.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I shall continue to make the problem of delayed discharges a priority, together with the restoration of domiciliary care as a cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Studies have shown that that is a fundamental measure in any strategy for dealing with the issue to which the Member referred.
Moreover, each board is committed to examining good practice and innovative schemes. The boards have identified schemes that are specifically designed to reduce admissions to long-term care, prevent inappropriate admissions to hospitals and facilitate early discharge. The Northern Board, in meeting its targets of 1,000 additional people to be treated in community settings, indicated that 75% of the additional support will be made available to elderly people, and that will have an impact on the problem.
There are no easy answers. I have made the case for substantial additional funding, some of which has now been secured and is finding its way into the service. Developing better services will provide a framework in which significant improvements can be made to the provision of acute services here. Significantly, I announced in the summer that Antrim Area Hospital will gain 24 additional medical beds at a cost of £3·47million, a new chemotherapy unit costing £1·58million, a new CT scanner costing £0·65million, and four additional dialysis stations costing £0·35million.
We must put capacity back into community services and hospitals to ensure that equipment is up to date and that staff are available. Since I became Minister, I have addressed in a sustained and strategic manner issues that had not received significant investment during direct rule.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline what she is doing to improve community care services, so that people who are able to use such services can do so rather than availing themselves of hospital care, thereby easing bed blocking?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have made a provision of £19·1 million. Each board has suggested ways in which community care can be improved. I carried out a review of community care, which has led to information on good practice being collated. Boards have been asked to take that into account when examining the implementation of the work to ensure that an additional 1,000 people in community settings are supported. That will help to address problems in the community, prevent inappropriate admissions to hospital and facilitate early dismissal.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister has advised that some £19 million of additional money has been directed towards the easement of bed blocking. However, does she acknowledge that there is a problem in the Homefirst Community Trust area, which serves United Hospitals, in that it receives less funding for community care per capita? The inability to move patients from hospitals into the community and provide care packages adds to the waiting lists.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The £19·1 million is for community settings and will include funding for nursing homes and free nursing care. However, the bulk of the money will be used to ease bed blocking. There are difficulties with delayed discharge in United Hospitals, which, according to provisional figures for the end of June 2002, have the highest number of patients awaiting discharge. I allocate funding to boards, and the boards decide on the allocation of funding to the trusts based on population needs.

Cancellation of Cancer Operations

Prof Monica McWilliams: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many cancer operations were cancelled last year due to lack of available intensive care unit beds.
(AQO25/02)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Níl teacht furasta ar an eolas seo san fhoirm inar iarradh é agus níorbh fhéidir é a fháil ach ar chostas díréireach.
That information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am disappointed by the Minister’s answer. That information should be available because cancer patients are being told to prepare for operations that require intensive care beds, only to be told that their operation has been cancelled.
My question is based on the case of an elderly woman who was admitted to the Ulster Hospital. On four occasions she prepared for an operation by fasting so that pre-operative medication could be administered, and on four occasions her operation was cancelled. She was sent home, told to fast, and to wait for a telephone call. A message cannot be sent out that the Health Service will tolerate such practice. Members must be told how many operations were cancelled in the past year because no intensive care beds were available.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: That detailed information is not available because of the way in which it is collected and collated. The cancellation of operations causes anxiety for cancer patients and their families. However, all trusts prioritise patients with suspected or diagnosed cancer, and they take all possible measures to minimise delays. Trusts have reported that cancer operations are rarely cancelled because intensive care beds are unavailable.
That will not be of much comfort to the small number of people who have been affected. However, although the Department does not collect statistics centrally, it is a matter that trusts prioritise and on which they take all possible action. Among other tasks, they ensure that procedures are in place to reschedule operations as soon as possible. Since I became Minister, I have taken considerable care to increase the number of high-dependency beds and intensive care beds that are available.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I share Ms McWilliams’s response to the Minister’s reply. It is disappointing that those answers are not forthcoming. Anyone who has cancer, or whose life is at risk, deserves a proper explanation as to why his or her operation has been cancelled, whether it be due to the lack of an intensive care bed or to the lack of a surgeon. That came through loud and clear in the latest waiting list report. More operations are being postponed — sometimes for six months. I want the Minister to inform the House of those figures as soon as possible.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: There is a major difference between patients not being told the reason why their operation has been postponed and my not having that information collected centrally. The fact that such information is not collected centrally does not in any way suggest that patients are not told why their operations have been cancelled.
I wanted to give an answer that was not based on information that trusts were able to give me from their own knowledge. That answer is that operations are scheduled by prioritising patients who have suspected or diagnosed cancer. It is rare for a cancer operation to be cancelled for that reason. Since 1999, when I became Minister, there has been significant expansion in the number of intensive care and high-dependency unit beds. It has considerably reduced the problems caused by the lack of availability of critical care beds. I accept that, occasionally, during peak periods, it is possible that all intensive care and high-dependency unit beds can be filled, which can result in urgent operations being postponed. Although such procedures are usually rescheduled quickly, I am, of course, not happy that any operation can be affected by the lack of such beds.

Mr Derek Hussey: With regard to the lack of intensive care unit beds, will the Minister clarify whether the major problem lies with the facility infrastructure or with the lack of staff? Will she also explain what action she is taking to remedy the problem?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As I have said, considerable work has been done to increase the number of intensive care and high-dependency unit beds. One of the first tasks that I undertook to do when I became Minister was to ask the Chief Medical Officer to review intensive care services. All 10 additional intensive care beds recommended by the Chief Medical Officer have been brought on-stream. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is clear that intensive care beds are available and staffed to support patients who require such care. However, the demand for those beds occasionally exceeds availability, and some operations might be temporarily delayed. As I said, immense action has been taken, given the cost of bringing on-stream both intensive care and high-dependency unit beds. It is not simply a question of funding; it is also a question of staff. When the Department examines how it can develop better services and the profile of each of the hospitals, it will also consider where intensive care and high-dependency provision needs to be.

Disabled Young People Leaving Education

Mr John Kelly: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what assessment she can make of the difficulties faced by disabled young adults leaving full-time education, and to outline how she intends to address the issue.
(AQO80/02)

Day Care for Young People Leaving Special Schools

Mr David Ford: 9. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many young people who left special schools this summer have been provided with (i) full-time; (ii) part-time; and (iii) no day care by health and social services trusts.
(AQO95/02)

Day Care for School-Leavers with Learning Disabilities

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 13. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether she plans to provide additional day-care services for school leavers and young adults with learning disabilities in the Dungannon area.
(AQO94/02)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Le do chead, a Cheann Comhairle, freagróidh mé ceisteanna 3, 9 agus 13 le chéile ós rud é go mbaineann siad leis an cheist chéanna.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall take questions 3, 9 and 13 together, as they relate to the same issue.
Tá sé tábhachtach go mbíonn teacht ag aosaigh óga mhíchumasacha ar thacaíocht agus ar sheirbhísí fóirsteanacha nuair a fhágann siad oideachas lánaimseartha. Thiocfadh dó gur teacht é seo ar oideachas, oiliúint agus fostaíocht bhreise a bheadh i gceist, chomh maith le teacht ar ionaid lae aosach nó scéimeanna gníomhaíochta lae eile a reachtálaíonn iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta.
Éilíonn ‘Tosaíochtaí le haghaidh Gníomhaíochta 2000-03’ ar bhoird agus ar iontaobhais leanstan ar aghaidh ag forbairt seirbhísí chúram lae agus seirbhísí faoisimh do dhaoine le míchumas foghlama. Ar 3 Meán Fómhair bhuail mé leis an Aire Oideachais agus leis an Aire Fostaíochta agus Foghlama le plé a dhéanamh ar cad é mar is féidir lenár Ranna agus lena ngníomhaireachtaí oibriú le chéile le freastal níos fearr a dhéanamh ar riachtanais na ndaoine óga seo. Iarradh ar fheidhmeannaigh tuairisc a thabhairt dúinn i mí na Samhna le moltaí.
It is important that disabled young adults have access to the appropriate range of services and support when they leave full-time education. That may be access to further education, training or employment, as well as access to adult day centres or other day activity schemes run by health and social services trusts. Priorities for action require boards and trusts to continue to develop the range of day-care and respite services for people with learning disabilities.
On 3 September, I met the Minister of Education and the Minister for Employment and Learning to discuss how our respective Departments and their agencies can work together to better meet the needs of those young people. Officials have been asked to report to us with proposals in November. Information on the numbers of young people who left special schools this summer, and the type of day care provided by health and social services trusts, has been placed in the Library.
As regards the development of day-care provision in the Dungannon area, I understand that the Southern Health and Social Services Board gave Armagh and Dungannon Health and Social Services Trust £68,000 in 1999-2000 for that purpose. A further £75,000 was allocated in 2002-03. The trust advises that the money was used to develop services in each of the four centres in the Dungannon area, especially the Aughnacloy day centre and the Oakridge Social Education Centre. The trust has reported that it is able to meet the day-care needs of special school leavers in that area.

Mr John Kelly: Does your Department require additional funding from the Executive if full day-care services for people with learning difficulties are to be developed?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have bid for additional resources in the next spending round. Additional funding is needed for day care and, indeed, for a whole range of other health and social services. However, I was able to allocate a further, recurrent £300,000 to boards in June for wheelchair and day-care provision.
Given the pressures across the spectrum of health and social services, it is inevitable that difficult decisions must be taken about the allocation of funding. However, it is health and social services’ responsibility to provide day care for those young people who are unable, because of their disability, to access further education, training or employment. Many young people do not want a day-care place and aspire to do the same things as their non-disabled peers.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for her response to my question, although I regret that she could not supply the statistics for which I asked.
No matter what the Minister might say about young people who may or may not want a place in day care, is it not a fact that there is a huge demand — indeed, requirement — for day-care places, both from young people with learning disabilities and from their parents? It is not a crisis that is thrust upon the Minister at the last minute, as people tend to reach the age of 19 gradually over a period of years. Why can priority not be given to that important area when other services, such as acute hospitals, seem to get a much easier acceptance from the Department?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: In relation to the Member’s regret about the provision of information, I have placed that information in the Library. Members must accept that I am restricted by time when answering questions, and that asking specific questions with more than one part, which requires detailed information, makes that rather difficult.
Six people are currently not receiving day care. Of those, one is due to receive day care shortly, initially part-time, but that will be increased to full-time care as soon as possible; one was referred to the trust only on 4 September and has yet to have a needs assessment; and another person’s parents were adamant that they did not want any day-care arrangements.
As I have said, I accept that additional funding is needed, and I have given additional funding to boards this year. Like all other Ministers, I must consistently bid for funding, and I shall continue to do so. I have given much more in that area than has been given for quite some time, although I accept that much more needs to be done.

Mr John Fee: I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that a cross-departmental approach will be taken. Will her Department take the lead in examining the issue of young people with disabilities who have left full-time education or specialist schools? Will she examine the quality of the accommodation in day-care centres, the facilities and equipment, the number of support staff available, and training provision for staff and parents?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Minister of Education took the lead in organising our meeting with the Minister for Employment and Learning. I am happy to report that the discussion was positive. It was not a case of pass the parcel. We discussed how each Minister could contribute to the future of people who leave special schools.
My Department’s remit covers the provision of services for those who are unable to access further education, training or employment because of disability. I have included the expansion of day-care services as a service development priority this year, and some of the additional funding allocated to boards for the development of community services is available for that purpose. However, it is important that we examine how our respective Departments and agencies can work together to better meet the needs of those young people.

Rev William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that no other society forces its young people out of full-time education at the age of 19? Although many of those young people have the bodies of 19-year-olds, they can have mental ages of seven or eight. Where else are children forced out of full-time education at that age? Why are those young people discriminated against by not being allowed to continue in full-time education? Many adult centres are totally inappropriate for children of that age. They fossilize rather than further themselves, while other children are permitted to develop. Can the Minister find a way to give those children the same access to education, learning and employment that other children have?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I cannot say who does or does not have the right to education, because that is not within my area of responsibility. However, the Ministers and officials at the meeting made it clear that we want to examine overall needs and centre our work on the needs of individuals to ensure that they do not fall between two stools — or in this case three, given that three different Departments are involved.
I also accept that, although facility-based day care may meet the needs of some people, provision must offer choice. Boards, therefore, prefer to develop a range of day care with several providers, including those from the voluntary sector, to develop innovative, locally based schemes, which have been particularly beneficial in some areas. That is a more inclusive response to the day-care needs of today’s young people.

Ambulance Service Grievance Procedure

Mr Mick Murphy: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, subsequent to delays in the processing of a grievance procedure relating to the shift rota at Kilkeel ambulance station, whether the Ambulance Service is required to adhere to any standards for the processing of such procedure.
(AQO78/02)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá a cuid nósanna imeachta inmheánacha féin ag an tSeirbhís Otharchairr le déileáil le gearáin fostaithe. Leagann siad sin amach amchlár soiléir mar threoirlíne le déiléail le céimeanna éagsúla na nósanna imeachta.
Tuigim go raibh moill dhosheachanta ann roinnt uaireanta i bpróiseáil gearáin faoi phatrúin sealanna a thóg foireann Stáisiún Otharchairr Chill Chaoil níos luaithe i mbliana. Tharla an mhoill mar gheall ar chastacht na ceiste agus cionnas nach raibh fáil ar go leor foirne le painéal achomhairc a chur le chéile ag an am.
The Ambulance Service has its own procedures for dealing with grievances raised by employees. Clear timetables are set as guidelines to deal with various stages of the procedures. I understand that earlier this year there were several unavoidable delays in the processing of a grievance about shift patterns that was raised by staff at Kilkeel ambulance station. Those delays were partly because of the nature and complexity of the issue and partly because of the unavailability of key staff to constitute an appeals panel during the period in question. Although the grievance was not upheld, the Ambulance Service has given the staff at Kilkeel an undertaking to review urgently the shift patterns.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer, and I am delighted to hear of the review. Will the Minister ensure that management listens to those at the coalface of accident and emergency care, and takes seriously their recommendations to improve the service rather than stick to the old, familiar ways? They are inadequate and endanger the welfare of patients.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Given the decision to refer the matter of shift patterns to the joint consultative negotiating committee for urgent consideration next month, it is clear that the service wishes to listen to staff, and that it accepts that there should be fair treatment and a consistency of approach for all staff.

Breast and Cervical Screening

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether she will consider offering breast and cervical screening to all women over 40.
(AQO93/02)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Faoi láthair, tugtar cuireadh do gach bean idir 50 bliain d’aois agus 64 bliana d’aois dul faoi scagthástáil cheirbheacsach gach trí bliana. Ní thacaíonn toradh an taighde atá ar fáil go nuige scagthástáil a thabhairt isteach do mhná faoi 50. Seo dearcadh an Choiste Scagthástála a thugann comhairle do na hAirí Sláinte anseo agus i Sasana, Albain agus sa Bhreatain Bheag.
The programme invites women between the ages of 50 and 64 for breast screening every three years. To date, research evidence available does not support the introduction of breast screening for women under 50. That is the view of the screening committee, which advises Health Ministers here, in England, in Scotland and in Wales.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank the Minister for her answer. What was the date of the most recent figures given to her Department? Would new figures not prove that the detection of more women over 40 might be relevant to the question that Monica McWilliams asked earlier about operations?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The reason for not introducing breast screening for women under 50 is that, in the view of the screening committee, there is a difficulty. The evidence available was assessed, and it is not at all clear that its introduction would lead to better detection. Mammograms, or X-rays of the breast, in women under 50 are much more difficult to interpret compared to those of women over 50. The breast tissue in women under 50 is more dense, thus making the X-ray difficult to read. Furthermore, the consistency of breast tissue in pre-menopausal women changes throughout each month, and that could result in an unacceptable level of false positives and false negatives.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Will the Minister examine why the breast-screening service does not apply to women over 64?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The extension of the breast-screening programme to women aged between 65 and 70 would increase the workload by approximately 40% and would require additional staff and finance. It is to be hoped that, in the coming year, I will be able to allocate funding for that purpose.

Mr Speaker: We have run out of time for questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Finance and Personnel

Mr Speaker: Question 2, in the name of Mr John Dallat, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Needs and Effectiveness Evaluation Studies

Ms Sue Ramsey: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on the current position of the needs and effectiveness evaluation studies.
(AQO86/02)

Dr Sean Farren: Five needs and effectiveness evaluations are being considered by the relevant Assembly Committees. They cover health and social care, education, financial assistance to industry, housing and vocational education and training. Further work has been undertaken on English expenditure figures provided by the Treasury. Such figures give us the comparators against which to assess our spending. Departments are being advised of the outcome of that work so that it can be taken into account in the consideration of the material.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Ms Sue Ramsey: The needs and effectiveness study now with the Committee highlighted that the Health Service is seriously underfunded. Will that be reflected in the forthcoming Budget?

Dr Sean Farren: The needs and effectiveness evaluation reports are important documents to be considered when finalising the forthcoming Budget, and they will help the Executive to make the best use of their resources. Health is an important priority, which has been emphasised in previous Budgets. The priority that we give to health and the results of the needs and effectiveness evaluations must be taken into account when we decide the Budget allocations.

Spending Review

Mrs Annie Courtney: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the key elements of the spending review and the implications for Northern Ireland.
(AQO101/02)

Dr Sean Farren: The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the outcome of the national spending review on 15 July 2002, and the Executive are considering its implications for Northern Ireland and how best to allocate the additional resources. The spending review provided Northern Ireland with additional resources, based on the Barnett formula, of approximately £148 million for 2003-04; £507 million for 2004-05; and £930 million for 2005-06. Northern Ireland also received non-Barnett additions for ring-fenced items such as the European Union Special Support Fund for Peace and Reconciliation (EUSSPPR). A draft Budget containing the Executive’s assessment and proposals will be presented to the Assembly on 24 September 2002.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Will additional resources target the Assembly’s agreed priority areas?

Dr Sean Farren: The Executive’s position report presented to the Assembly on 5 June 2002 outlines the key issues that affect public services. Based on the comments received from departmental Committees and other interested parties, the Executive are considering the best allocation of resources. As I said earlier, the Budget will be presented next week.
I will outline the process thereafter. The draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget will be presented next week. In October and early November the Committee for Finance and Personnel will take evidence from other Committees on the draft Budget. That will be followed by a take-note debate on the subject, and the revised Budget will be presented to the Assembly for debate and vote in early December.

Wet Weather Payments for Farmers

Mr Edwin Poots: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what consultation has taken place with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on wet weather payments for farmers.
(AQO99/02)

Dr Sean Farren: I met the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development last week, and she raised the issue of wet weather payments for farmers. Her Department is reviewing the situation and will be unable to assess the position until the autumn, when the growing season has ended. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and I have agreed that she will keep the issue under review, and, indeed, she has written to Executive Colleagues to advise them of the matter.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development raised the issue only last week; perhaps she did so because she knew that there would be a question to be answered this week. Is the Minister of Finance and Personnel aware of the severe problems that farmers have faced, and still face, as a result of the wet weather earlier this year? Does he realise that harvests are substantially down on previous years and that farmers are in hardship and crisis? What assistance can he offer to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development so that she can deliver help to the rural community?

Dr Sean Farren: I am aware of the situation from my own observation and through direct contact with members of the farming community. I am sure that the Minister did not first consider wet weather payments last week. She advised me that she was reviewing the matter then, but that followed ongoing consideration of the matter by her and her officials in recent months. As I suggested in my initial answer, when the position becomes clear, then, and only then, can decisions be taken about allocations under the wet weather payments scheme.

John Taylor: The farming industry has suffered badly as a result of various diseases over the past few years, and the situation has been made much worse this year by the atrocious weather. Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel assure the House that if the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development agrees that there should be an application to the European Commission for wet weather payments, she will have his Department’s full support? Should such an application to Brussels be successful, will he tell the House whether it will be funded entirely from the European Commission, entirely from the Northern Ireland allocation, or from both? If a wet weather payment scheme proceeds, will payments be made to the agriculture industry generally in Northern Ireland or to individual farmers?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind the Minister that he should answer only one of those questions.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for the three invitations to speculate on what action would be sought from the Executive on a situation that might arise. I hesitate to become involved in such speculation, but in my previous response I said that I am aware of the situation that has been affecting the agriculture industry. However, my Colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development must advise me about the precise situation as regards wet weather payments.

Mr P J Bradley: I will try to ask a question that Mr Taylor may have left out. There are currently no central EU funds from which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development can bid for aid. Will the Minister, therefore, assure the Assembly that he will be sympathetic to any bids from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to address the problem?

Dr Sean Farren: My role is to consider bids by all my Colleagues. Bids from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development will be given careful and sympathetic consideration, in line with that approach.

Water Charges

Mr Francie Molloy: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail (a) any plans to introduce water charges; and (b) whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a view on water charging; and to make a statement.
(AQO112/02)

Dr Sean Farren: There are no plans to introduce water charges. The Minister for Regional Development is considering the future organisation of the Water Service. His proposals will have important implications for the future financing and structure of water and sewerage services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not directly expressed a view on water charging here.

Mr Francie Molloy: Is there European pressure on the Minister to introduce water charges? Will he take into account the TSN policy and the effect of the imposition of water charges on those with larger families who use more water, and those who live in deprived areas? It is important that services should be freely available, as charges would be detrimental to them.

Dr Sean Farren: I am aware of the European Directives, but responsibility for responding to Directives on water quality and sewerage lies with the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of the Environment. As with all the members of the Executive, I am aware of the need to bear the TSN policy in mind, whenever or wherever policies are being developed.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister agree that the introduction of water metering would conserve water? Does he also agree that it would dispel the myth, prevalent throughout Northern Ireland, that people receive their water free of charge?

Dr Sean Farren: That question must be directed to the Minister responsible for the Water Service, not the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Mr Joe Byrne: Will the Minister confirm that there are no current plans or intentions to introduce a system of direct water metering charges for domestic householders in Northern Ireland?

Dr Sean Farren: The consultation document on the review of the rating system includes a section on the future financing of the Water Service. Having read it, they will be aware that the Executive have ruled out any proposal for the introduction of water meters.

Strategic Resources Shift

Mr John Kelly: 6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what plans are being developed to ensure a strategic shift in resources across Departments in 2003-04 and future years.
(AQO84/02)

Dr Sean Farren: The Executive are considering the development and annual revision of the Programme for Government, which will inform our budgetary decisions, and seek to develop a collective direction involving agreed priorities, based on our assessment of where the greatest needs lie across the 11 Departments. We will take account of the outcome of the national spending review and the responses to the consultation that followed the publication of the Executive’s June position report. Next week, a draft Budget containing our assessments and proposed spending plans will be presented to the Assembly, alongside the revised Programme for Government. At that stage, Members and Committees will have a full opportunity to engage in the process before the revised Budget is presented to the Assembly for a debate and vote on it in early December.

Mr John Kelly: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Am I to take it from his response that this plan will end the large underspending of the past couple of years? Will it ensure that those Departments that need the money will get it, rather than have certain Departments bidding for more funding than they need?

Dr Sean Farren: If Mr Kelly is implying that any funds are allocated without proper consideration of the business plans associated with the expenditure in question, I must dispel that belief. Before the summer, I presented the Assembly with an outline of how I intend to deal with the problem of underspending. Several Members, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel in particular, have been quite exercised about this, and action to address it is under consideration as part of the process of formulating the draft Budget.

Financing our Future

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for a timetable on the implementation of ‘Financing our Future’.
(AQO103/02)

Dr Sean Farren: On 21 May, I announced to the Assembly the Executive’s launch of a consultation exercise, ‘Financing our Future’, which focused primarily on the report by the working group on the opportunities for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Northern Ireland. The consultation period, lasting some 18 weeks, has, to date, been proactive and constructive. It has included several public meetings and discussions with organisations, including representatives from the trade union movement, the business community and the voluntary sector. The process continues with today’s debate and ongoing engagement with Committees. The consultation period ends on 20 September, when detailed consideration and an evaluation of comments and written submissions will begin. The findings will be submitted to the Executive later this year, and they will make a final decision on a policy framework for PPPs in Northern Ireland.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Has consideration been given to the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report on PPPs?

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for her supplementary question, which reminds us of the significant work undertaken by the Committee on public-private partnerships. The Committee’s report made a useful and significant contribution to the discussion on the use of PPPs to fund public services. As part of the consultation process for the working group’s report, account was taken of responses to the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report. In formulating their final policy on the opportunities for using public-private partnerships, the Executive will take account of the PPP working group’s report and the Committee’s report.

Procurement Policy

Mr Alex Attwood: 8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what progress has been made in implementing the new procurement policy.
(AQO102/02)

Dr Sean Farren: Since the announcement of the new procurement policy on 27 May 2001, the procurement board has met and agreed its terms of reference and approved the establishment of a procurement practitioners’ group, which will assist the development of policy. It has also approved a work plan for the central procurement directorate for the period up to March 2003. The next meeting of the board is scheduled for early December, at which a plan for implementing all recommendations of the procurement review team will be tabled for discussion.

Mr Alex Attwood: I acknowledge this bold and imaginative initiative by the Minister — an effort to ensure that public procurement becomes a mechanism to address long-term unemployment and disadvantage. However, the Minister will be aware that there were only four proposals for pilot schemes to the public procurement board two weeks ago, despite the fact that 20 were hoped for. Can the Minister reassure the Assembly that permanent secretaries will redouble their efforts to ensure that contracts of sufficient volume, value and impact are identified and forwarded to the public procurement board for consideration as a pilot scheme?

Dr Sean Farren: This is an important issue, and the idea of working through a series of pilot schemes is central to achieving the social dimension to procurement policy — helping the long-term unemployed in particular. As suggested by the procurement review team, Departments have initially been asked to submit capital work projects with a value above the European Union tendering threshold of £3·8 million, or service projects with a value above £500,000. Some Departments have stated that they have no such projects available in the current financial year, and so far only five projects have been identified for inclusion in the scheme. My officials are working closely with all Departments to ensure that we achieve our target of 20 projects.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister for Regional Development, in a written reply to Mr Attwood, appears to be quite sceptical, if not openly hostile, to the idea of using procurement policy for some of the benefits that the Minister has outlined. What authority will the Minister or the procurement team have in this regard, given that the Department for Regional Development is a huge spender and is heavily involved in public procurement?

Dr Sean Farren: Views differ on this issue, but it is clearly set down and endorsed by the Executive that procurement policy should have this clear social dimension. I will be working with my officials and ministerial Colleagues to ensure that this objective is achieved across all Departments. I am conscious of the considerable scale of expenditure for which the Minister for Regional Development is responsible.

Review of Rating Policy

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an update on the review of rating policy.
(AQO119/02)

Dr Sean Farren: I announced the launch of the consultation stage of the review of rating policy on 27 May 2002. A dedicated web site has since gone online, and three public conferences have been held. There has also been a series of meetings with groups, organisations and district councils. Furthermore, evidence has been given to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. Consultation ends in mid-September, but I have decided to extend the deadline for Committees and district councils until 7 October. The consultation period will be followed by an assessment of responses. I hope to present a report on identified options to the Executive later this year. If significant change is endorsed, the legislative process will commence in 2003.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: It is important that the public have a say on the issue. Only last week, I took part in a seminar run by the Federation of Small Businesses in the Long Gallery, at which those present participated eagerly and expressed their views. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the public response to the consultation so far?

Dr Sean Farren: I appreciate the curiosity about statements at those meetings. Members will fully appreciate that it is taking officials some time to collate and tabulate all the reactions, comments and recommendations made during the consultation.
I will, however, give a flavour of what has transpired. In June three public consultation conferences were held in Enniskillen, Belfast and Derry to discuss domestic and non-domestic rating issues. Representatives from local businesses, district and borough councils, public sector bodies and the voluntary sector attended the conferences, as did members of the public. Total attendances were disappointing. However, since the web site went live, it has been visited on more than 17,400 occasions, resulting in the consultation paper being downloaded more than 7,000 times. Clearly, society is availing of electronic communication to a greater extent than it is attending consultation meetings.
Several meetings were held with specific interest groups, including the Association of Local Government Finance Officers, charitable groups, the business sector and trade union groups. Two forums were held during August, with the landed professions — estate agents, valuers and surveyors — and with district council personnel through the Northern Ireland Local Government Association.
In addition, by mid-September the head of the Rating Policy Branch will have addressed council meetings in Fermanagh, Castlereagh and Omagh. Meetings have also been held with the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, the Confederation of British Industry, the Northern Ireland Independent Retailers’ Association, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Association and the Federation of Small Businesses. A wrap-up conference has been organised for 23 September in Belfast.
We have attempted to consult widely, and many organisations and groups have approached us seeking the attendance of officials to explain the issues. I trust that the consultation process has been as comprehensive as possible during the past few months.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister has outlined that a wide range of business interests and professional groups have responded to date. Can he advise Members of the degree of the response from domestic ratepayers to date? Would he acknowledge that a greater public response would be expected if more details were available of how the changes might ultimately affect individual households? Why was such indicative information not included in the consultation paper?

Dr Sean Farren: Although many organisations might appear to represent the non-domestic sector, every representative is resident somewhere, and, I imagine, interested in domestic rates. All aspects of the review were considered. I am reasonably assured that as comprehensive an opportunity as possible has been afforded to both domestic and non-domestic interests to address the issues.
The amount of downloading from and the number of visits to the web site show the high volume of interest across both areas.

Ouseley Report on the Review of the Senior Civil Service

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether he will make public the findings of the Ouseley Report on the review of the Senior Civil Service.
(AQO98/02)

Dr Sean Farren: The report and consultation document on the appointment and promotion procedures for the Senior Civil Service was made available to the public on 9 July as part of the consultation process. It is not a question of when the report will be published; it was published some time ago.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: When will the Minister’s Department act on the report’s findings? The longer it fails to act, the more the staff in the Civil Service will be discriminated against when they reach 60.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is impossible for the Minister to give Mr McCarthy a full answer in the time allowed, and I am sure that he will receive a written answer.

Mr Seamus Close: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to refer me to the Minister for Regional Development to find out whether the Minister of Finance and Personnel agrees with a concept under water charges?

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is entirely appropriate for a Minister to refer you to another Minister if he feels that that is right.

Mr Seamus Close: To find out whether he agrees with something?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Thank you, Mr Close.

Review of Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly notes the Report of the Review of Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland and the Executive’s consultation process on ‘Financing our Future’. — [The First Minister (Mr Trimble).]

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It was heartening to hear the First Minister say earlier that private finance initiatives (PFI) or public-private partnerships (PPP) are not a panacea and to hear other Members say that they are not the only horse or show in town. I was afraid that those of us who opposed PFI might be accused of being Luddites.
The Conservative British Government of John Major launched PFI in 1992, and the original motivation behind it was to reduce public expenditure in Britain at a time in the early 1990s when public borrowing was perceived to be out of control.
The British public sector budget had a surplus of £20 billion in 2001, but that did not inhibit the uncontrolled progression of PFI. One would expect that, with that huge surplus, the critical issue of public expenditure would be well under control. However, it seems that PFI has become a means of replacing public expenditure rather than adding to public services.
There are enormous questions around PFI that have not been studied, answered or resolved. Everyone seems to take the view that "if the money is there, why not use it?" However, they have not considered the serious consequences. The First Minister said that he had met school teachers and others who considered PFI to be praiseworthy, as it allowed them more time to run their schools rather than be concerned about replacing old buildings, about the fabric of the building, or about looking for new buildings.
However, the British Medical Association said that, apart from the evidence on beds and doctor numbers, PFI health provision has led to questioning every service provided. As a result, prolonged and expensive treatments have been withdrawn, and care is concentrated on patients who are broadly healthy rather than on the chronically sick. Expensive treatments such as maternity and accident and emergency treatments are reduced. Those who can afford to buy insurance get private treatment, while those who cannot must wait for services that may never materialise. The number of people who die while on waiting lists for cancer care is a case in point.
In effect, PFI acts to put profit before people. It therefore acts to undermine the very foundations of socialised medicine and social services. That is at the core of my objection to PFI. Trade unions and workers in Scotland have successfully campaigned on the basis of their objections to keep workers out of PFI contracts so that they cannot be transferred to the private sector against their will. In Wales, ancillary workers such as cleaners and meal workers have simply been classified as clinical staff, which enables them to remain in the public sector under existing rules.
Yet officials in the Northern Department of Education are reportedly still telling education and library boards that all PFI projects must include the transfer of employees, who are, once again, primarily cleaners and meal workers. The privatisation of workers is the greatest source of private profit in many PFI projects, and there must be a strong suspicion that those who favour PFI are concerned that their projects will not be attractive enough to the private sector unless workers are transferred or made redundant. The protection of public sector workers may be the most important immediate task of the campaign against PFI.
The unions here said:
"We are still gravely concerned with regard to the insufficient time and resources allocated to exploring alternative sources of funding such as Not For Profit, the USA experience, and Bond Finance."
Those unions are the most vocal against PFI. Seamus Close said that public money is cheaper, but public responsibility is a major factor in how we approach the notion of PFI. We are not against increased spending on public utilities such as schools, hospitals and roads. However, we question whether it is cheaper to do that through public funding or through PFI. I argue that the latter is certainly more expensive. The evidence so far will confirm the notion that privately financed projects are more expensive than those funded publicly.
The strategic investment body is, I believe, the driver behind PFI. Have the voluntary sector and the unions been consulted on the matter? There are issues of accountability and planning. Where PFI has been introduced, the planning of public services has effectively been carried out by private companies without there being adequate accountability. For example, hospital bed numbers are reduced to make plans affordable without any concern for the knock-on effects for other parts of the Health Service.
The British Medical Association has shown that the health trusts running the first 14 hospitals in Britain that were built under PFI will lose a total of 3,700 beds, and that, on average, bed numbers will decline by 31%. A study carried out by a consultancy company that works for the NHS trusts and the Department of Health found that every £200 million spent on privately financed hospitals would result in the loss of 1,000 doctors and nurses. In essence, PFI drains money away from areas that need it more, thus increasing health inequalities.
We must take a serious view of PFI. There must be more consultation, particularly with the unions involved. For example, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) has opposed PFI throughout Ireland. The INTO has not been adequately consulted about the effects of PFI’s introduction on its members. Nor has there been sufficient consultation with trade unions in services such as hospitals and the public sector bodies that we have mentioned.
The main conclusion is that PFI is one of the most important social and economic policy challenges that the Irish people face. Attempts by both the Dublin and British Governments to displace public spending on important social projects with private finance would have a damaging impact on the fabric of our society, both now and in the future.
Private finance holds out the politically attractive prospect of "free money" with which to provide popular projects now. That is an illusion, because the profit motive and the bargaining expertise of business, not to mention the possibility of corruption, mean that society will pay greater costs in the future for the "free money" that politicians seek today.
It will be difficult to explain to the people who seek and deserve new hospitals and schools that PFI is an unnecessary illusion, but the resources that are required to provide for social needs must be made available. The Government have those resources, or can get them through more equitable fiscal policies, such as fair taxation, or through alternative ways to raise money, such as the issue of bonds.
We should not be deluded by PFI or PPP into thinking that this so-called "free money" will solve all our problems. Until we have a proper and comprehensive consultation and a thorough examination of experiences elsewhere, we should exercise caution in coming to any definitive conclusions about the benefits of PFI.

Mr Alban Maginness: The debate has been interesting, and there has been a degree of maturity in the Chamber on the subject of PPP, at least until Mr Kelly’s speech. Most Members have refrained from simply opposing a proposition out of financial orthodoxy. We have refrained from applying a sort of financial fundamentalism to public administration and finance. However, listening to Mr Kelly’s speech, I became confused as to whether he was a member of Sinn Féin or a member of some other party.
The reality is that the Sinn Féin Ministers are the most dedicated to PPP and PFI. They are the people who have most relied on PPP. It is a matter between Mr Kelly and his Colleagues in Sinn Féin as to whether those differences can be satisfactorily reconciled. Listening to his speech, I could not believe that they could possibly be reconciled. However, that is a political problem for Sinn Féin.

Mr John Kelly: I do not know whether Mr Maginness has been listening. I was attempting to say that we must look at PPP and PFI more critically than we have done before. I am, and will continue to be, a member of Sinn Féin — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Kelly: What I have said does not conflict with anything that the Sinn Féin Ministers have done so far. All we are saying is that we should have a critical look at PFI, and not accept it, as the First Minister said this morning, as some kind of panacea.

Mr Alban Maginness: I am sure that Mr Martin McGuinness and Ms Bairbre de Brún are relieved that Mr Kelly is now in line with the Sinn Féin approach to PPP and PFI. Alarm bells may not be sounding in Sinn Féin over Mr Kelly’s previous remarks, given that he has entered quite a strict qualification on his previous propositions to the House.
Members can check the record on that.
The SDLP’s position on PPPs is not one of financial orthodoxy or financial fundamentalism. We accept that there is a need for PPPs, but it is qualified, not absolute. Strict conditions should be imposed. It is important that there is value for money. There is no point in having PPPs if they only serve to indulge the private sector and allow it to make excessive profits out of the system of public finance.
It is essential that there be enhanced value for the money used in PPPs. That money must be additional to public finances, rather than a substitute for them. The SDLP also believes that the benefits of efficiency and effectiveness should compensate the public for the outlay. Our goal is to see high quality public services that give value to everyone. If PPPs do not deliver that extra efficiency and effectiveness, they are a waste of time.
The SDLP also wants to see the protection of workers’ rights in PPPs. We want transparency in how the Government decide on PPPs, undertake the selection process, and agree their contractual terms and conditions.
I share the reservations expressed by other Members in the debate, as does my party. I have reservations about the length, complexity and size of contracts. We want PPP contracts to be properly controlled; we cannot give the private sector contracts that allow it to evade proper responsibility.
The SDLP would like to see the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive explore the option of voluntary, or not-for-profit, bodies or companies for the public services. The Executive should also be exploring the use of bonds.
All types of enterprise involve some risk and some burden on our citizens, but there is nevertheless a variety of funding solutions for Northern Ireland.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, I re-emphasise that there has been an enormous deficit in our road network, public transportation system and water service for the past 30 years. That deficit is grave and challenging, and both Members and Executive Ministers have a duty to address it. That duty includes exploring PPPs and PFIs to find out whether they can assist us in trying to remove that deficit so that we can rebuild public services in Northern Ireland. We need a cocktail of options, not only one source of public funding.
The SDLP also welcomes the creation of a strategic investment body, which will be useful in monitoring what is being done and in targeting what should be done. That body will be crucial in developing future public services.
The reinvestment and reform initiative, which was negotiated by the Deputy First Minister and the British Treasury, has been mentioned. Everyone welcomes that: it gives the Government greater flexibility as regards public finance. It will help us to rebuild public services and our physical infrastructure; however, it will not be the final solution to our problems. It will be of limited use because we need an income stream for it to be used effectively. It is essential that we do not overburden the ratepayer; that would be grossly unfair. Therefore, there is a limit to the reinvestment and reform initiative, and Members should bear that in mind. There are no easy options in relation to public finance. However, the SDLP believes that Members should explore as many aspects of public finance as possible.
We must explore PPPs and PFIs and apply them in the terms that I have outlined. In the Republic, PPPs and PFIs are used to rebuild the roads structure and transportation system. Some 1·2 billion euros, which is 20% of the road building programme, and 80 million euros, which is 13% of public transport, are PPP-based. Therefore, it is not only in Britain that PPPs are being used effectively. Our neighbours in the South also use them effectively, and we should explore that situation further. The Executive and the Minister of Finance and Personnel are right to come to the House to seek Members’ views. We should give a guarded welcome to the report.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is a pity that a good debate was marred by cheap shots from Alban Maginness — I suppose that has more to do with the fact that Members are in election campaign mode than anything else. The Ministers are, unfortunately, working within financial constraints, and the British Treasury is pushing us down a particular road.
Sinn Féin is not alone in voicing concerns about the move towards reliance on private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships to finance public capital building programmes and the provision of public services. Sinn Féin, through the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Molloy, instigated an inquiry into PPPs and alternative ways to finance much-needed investment in public services, such as in hospitals, schools and infrastructure. That inquiry found that the best way to finance public services was through the public purse, using funds generated by general taxation, and, fundamentally, that public services should remain under public control.
Unfortunately, neither the review of opportunities for PPPs nor the Executive’s consultation on ‘Financing Our Future’ have explored the full range of procurement and financial options. For example, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) statement to the review shows that the trade unions share that concern. It says:
"We are still gravely concerned with regard to the insufficient time and resources allocated to exploring alternative sources of funding such as Not For Profit, the USA experience and Bond Finance."
We can look for explanations from around the world, and we can call the initiative PPP, PFI or anything we want, but it is privatisation of our public services to a greater or lesser degree. The Assembly is being pushed into accepting that option. We must remember the key point, which is that the public sector can borrow at a more favourable rate than the private sector. We must look seriously at alternatives. I shall suggest a few, but it is for the Executive to examine them.

Mr Alban Maginness: The Member said that PPP was a form of privatisation, but it is an alternative form of public financing. It is really an alternative form of borrowing by the Government. Naturally, it has implications for workers and those involved in service delivery, but we must ask whether we would have the specialist cancer centre without PPP. If that centre is established in Belfast, will you regard it as a privatised cancer service?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members that they must put questions through the Chair.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: We all recognise the difficulties and the constraints under which we must operate. Every Minister in the Executive is faced with the choice of whether to go down the road of PPP or PFI to provide essential services. My party and others argue that we should examine alternative means. We should not have to choose between PPP and nothing.
The people who carry out the review must look seriously at alternatives. For example, we should examine the possibility of the Assembly’s borrowing from external bodies such as the European Investment Bank.
Of course, that should be subject to sensible economic calculations, such as expected changes in exchange rates. The problem is that British Treasury rules disallow all public bodies here from doing that. In European terms, that is highly unusual, and it is a tight restriction on the autonomy of public bodies, without any economic basis. If special provisions can be made for the North to borrow from the British Treasury, which the 2002 Brown/Blair initiative introduced, they should be extended to allow the Assembly to decide when, where and from whom to borrow.
Public bonds were also mentioned. Why should the Assembly not be able to sell bonds to the public at a guaranteed rate of return over several years? Public bonds have been suggested as a possible way to fund the London Underground, and they are regularly used by US cities to fund major projects. Crucially for our purposes, the British Treasury recently waived its opposition to bonds in order to allow Wales to modernise its water supply through that source of finance. Glas Cymru, a non-profit public company issued £2 billion worth of bonds to buy the utility that supplies water and sewerage services to Wales.

Mr Alban Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I have already given way; I prefer to speak.
Public bonds are preferable to PFIs because lower rates of interest can be charged and public bodies can borrow at lower rates. Most importantly, capital investment projects such as hospitals and schools remain under full public ownership and management. In the case of Glas Cymru, bond funding was accompanied by an innovative management incentive scheme. The emphasis is on reducing the cost of provision by ploughing savings back into lower user fees, and managers are paid bonuses if they reduce costs to the public. That is the opposite of PFIs, which give incentives to managers to realise profits at the expense of the public and the workforce.
All parties here should campaign to persuade the British Treasury that we should have tax-raising and tax-varying powers to give the Assembly much more freedom to operate financially.

Mr John Kelly: Does the Member agree with my earlier statement that, despite a surplus of £20 billion in 2001, the British Exchequer continued to use PFI to replace public expenditure instead of adding to it? Would she also agree, in case I am accused of being a Luddite by Alban Maginness, that professional associations, such as the British Medical Association, oppose PFI? It was described in the British Medical Journal as "perfidious financial idiocy" that could "destroy the NHS". The Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants, the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts and the Health Committee have also criticised PFI in Britain.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree with his comments.

Mr Alban Maginness: I assume that tax-raising powers will involve taxing people’s income or taxation in some other form. Does the Member suggest that taxes here should be increased — that the taxpayer here should pay more than in other places?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I am not suggesting any such thing. Tax-raising and tax-varying powers would give the Assembly much more financial freedom to operate.
Unfortunately, PFIs and PPPs are central to the British Government’s plans for transforming the economy. They are inextricably linked to the Budget, the Barnett formula, the reinvestment and reform initiative, the strategic investment body, increases in rates, and the imminent introduction of water charges.
It is part of an effort by the British Treasury to tighten its control of our fiscal policy and to privatise public services. It is an agenda that is not being effectively resisted by an Executive dominated by the orthodox SDLP and UUP.
We do not have economic sovereignty; unfortunately it is subject to shrinking financial resources and unduly restrictive policy planning rules laid down by the British Government, which seriously compromise the capacity of the Northern Executive to meet local needs. The Assembly merely administers British Government policy within already set and extremely tight financial constraints and guidelines.
With regard to this report and ‘Financing Our Future’, I ask the Executive to go back to the drawing board, give us more alternatives, and let us try to be more imaginative in our approach.

Mr Derek Hussey: I realise that the best funding that the Assembly can have is directly from the public sector. However, if I needed somewhere to live, but could not afford to pay for a house, I could rent one, take out a mortgage, or seek some sort of finance. There is a tremendous deficit in the overall infrastructure of Northern Ireland, which must be addressed. The Assembly must consider the current review of the possibility of PPPs and the different ways of using them.
I want to deal with four issues that arose during the debate. First, when the Committee for Finance and Personnel visited England, it saw that the Department of Health had a central unit that assisted health trusts to formulate contracts, including specifications, risk transfers, financial models, legal issues, and so on. It had a centre of excellence and expertise. We need to develop such a centre in Northern Ireland.
Many of our Departments have PPP units replicating costs, particularly for consultancy. Would it not be better to employ consultants to provide financial and legal expertise on a permanent in-house basis as in the Department of Health? The development of a centre of excellence, which could develop the necessary expertise, should be wholly cross-departmental.
Secondly, people have referred to the private sector gaining profit through PPPs. Naturally the private sector will not get involved in this for philanthropic reasons; it will seek to make a return on its investment. The private sector will make a profit regardless of whether we use conventional finance, the reinvestment and reform initiative or PPPs. However, we should not allow the private sector to lead the process or tell us when projects should commence. More especially, the private sector should not tell us which projects we should undertake. We must take the lead in all projects.
Thirdly, I want to deal with asset management. Mr Beggs and I have tabled questions about Northern Ireland’s assets. The public sector has many various assets and, perhaps, we are not making the best use of them. Some might not be suitable for the purpose for which they are being utilised; others may be doing nothing for us. For instance, are our schools big enough, and will they be big enough in the future? What is the true condition of our water and sewerage systems? How much will it cost to bring them up to standard? There is now a cost to capital through resource accounting and budgeting. We need to know whether the concept that public finance is cheaper than private finance still applies, or how much difference there is. For example, what authority do the Executive have to sell off their assets and to use the receipts for future investments?
Members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel mentioned that little or nothing has happened since the publication of its report on PPPs. I tend to agree, but we must acknowledge what has happened. At departmental level, capital expenditure plans have been ongoing, and PPP plans have been developing. The weakness lies in the lack of a strategic approach at central level. That shows the long-term effects of short-term planning on resource manoeuvrability.
Some of the capital budgets allocated to Departments in the 2001-02 Budget have also featured in end-year flexibility. Would resources available in 2001-02 have been better spent at 2001-02 prices rather than being earmarked as rolling-on, end-year finance?
We need to have a strategic investment body up and running with a remit of examining current PPP and capital plans. The Committee made visits to see how other areas dealt with PPPs; we must learn from the mistakes and, indeed, the experience of others. I know of capital projects where the design, build and maintain concept has been a very effective way of ensuring a first-class product. It is a logical idea; the people who designed and built the project will also maintain it, so they will not do a sloppy job that will cost a fortune to maintain.
Some people are concerned that some projects undertaken in Northern Ireland may be too small. However, there is no reason why we cannot consider bundling projects; that is, bringing projects together to create a larger package that is attractive to the private sector.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunities for public-private partnerships in Northern Ireland. The motion is particularly timely, as it comes at the end of the ‘Financing Our Future’ consultation and in the aftermath of the Report of the Review of Opportunities for Public Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland.
The consequences of years of underinvestment in public services can be seen today clearly. Although not the solution in themselves, public-private partnerships have great potential to dispel our huge investment deficit, which is projected to increase over the next decade.
A form of public-private partnership is already operating in the agricultural sector. Today’s farmers do not have the same access to machinery or expertise as agricultural contractors do. A type of public-private partnership is formed whereby agricultural contractors employ farmers to do the job that they know best. People are taking the initiative to run a business. As my hon Friend mentioned, the people who erect buildings will maintain them and ensure that they are fit for their intended purpose.
Many European countries have seen a rise in the number of private finance mechanisms as opposed to traditional public procurement methods. However, it has been suggested that public-private partnerships are best suited to areas such as regional development to boost roads and general infrastructure, and for hospital development.
One concern about the use of public-private partnerships is the potential for unaccountability — partners could take on a mind of their own. The best way to prevent such unaccountability is for the public sector to maintain its monopoly of policy responsibility and control. However, the Government must co-operate with private bodies and work with those who often have excellent insight into what is needed.
Members are aware of the investment deficit in water and sewerage services. Problems have reached crisis point and can no longer be ignored. There have been many questions in the House on sewerage problems and the environment.

Mr Derek Hussey: Mr Armstrong mentioned a crisis situation, suggesting that such crises are forcing us into forming PPPs. Interestingly, when we visited Dublin to explore this issue, one of the contributions was that PPPs were being approached there from a position of strength, with a strong economy. Rather than being forced into the situation, many of the capital projects that led them through to PPP/PFI were a matter of choice. I am sure that Mr Armstrong will agree that we must find a model that suits the system in Northern Ireland.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I agree that we have to explore all avenues and find a model that best suits the Northern Ireland economy. The crisis in our public services is highlighted by the Report of the Review of Opportunities for Public Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland. We must fully explore all alternative sources of financing. PPPs are seen as a more expensive option than conventional financing; however, they offer potential benefits. The working group noted that one advantage is that the contract mechanism ensures that the service is maintained to a specified standard during the lifetime of the contract. For example, penalties can be introduced for breach of contract.
No one solution, including PPPs, is likely to meet the many needs of Northern Ireland, which has higher levels of social disadvantage than the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that this alternative source of finance for public services leads to the discovery of other such sources in Northern Ireland.

Dr Sean Farren: I found the debate valuable and interesting. I compliment Members on their contributions, whether they were supportive, critical or sceptical of PPPs.
Concerns were raised about the form of consultation. The ‘Financing our Future’ report was compiled by a representative group, which consisted of members of the trade union movement, the business community and the voluntary and community sectors. A very intense process of discussion and engagement took place, not just within the group, but with others. All aspects of the issue have been thoroughly considered by the working party. In that respect, all interested parties had the opportunity to have input to the report. Members who have read the report will note the reservations expressed by representatives of various sectors about it. Notwithstanding those reservations, however, the report has received broad support.
Since the report was presented to the Assembly in May, public consultation has proceeded. I chaired a public meeting in Belfast in June and found it stimulating and thought-provoking. It was well-attended and the discussion was very lively indeed. Several key issues were highlighted that must be borne in mind. Many were echoed by Members in this debate. In particular, our social partners, including trades unions, expressed concerns about public-private partnerships.
The meeting also provided an opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstandings about PPPs held by the public and other representative organisations. A panel of experts from the public, private and voluntary sectors and trades unions provided assistance. Other public meetings were similarly constructed. The junior Ministers represented the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and assistance was provided by the panel of experts, which was drawn from those who had helped to formulate the report.
The meeting was followed up by a meeting last week to hear the views of a delegation from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, one of the largest trade unions to represent public sector workers. Some were critical of PPPs, and all views will be used to inform the policy-making process on their use.
Furthermore, I recently visited one of our operational school PPP projects to hear at first hand how it operates. It proved to be a valuable visit that allowed me to see the benefits to teachers and pupils of new accommodation with modern and well-maintained facilities. I learned how education is provided in the school and how its ancillary services are delivered.
That visit added to the experience that I gained with the Department for Employment and Learning, which uses PPPs to provide accommodation in the further education sector. Members who are familiar with the project in the North-West Institute of Further and Higher Education in Derry and the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education’s recently opened Millfield campus, and who have kept an eye on projects to provide new accommodation in Omagh and Dungannon, will appreciate how such PPPs are being developed with the intense co-operation and involvement of the institutions and their representatives, as well as those who have brought the projects to fruition.
Despite our long experience of providing such facilities by the traditional route, we do not reflect on one striking feature of public-private partnerships: the close involvement of those who provide the facilities, buildings and services and those who use them. It is a partnership that potentially gives both sides greater influence and control over the project’s development, not just until the doors open but also throughout the lifespan of the project. That contrasts with the traditional procurement route, whereby a facility would be handed over and, in a sense, that would be that. If the facilities were not up to scratch, clients might have to chase contractors for a long time to ensure that things were put right. By highlighting the problems with traditional procurement, I am not arguing that PPPs are always the correct choice. However, I ask Members to reflect on those experiences, to familiarise themselves with projects, especially those in their constituencies, and to learn from people’s experiences.
Not everything has gone as well as was expected; however, that is also the case with traditional procurement. I hear frequently about bad experiences across the water from those who are more critical of PPPs. However, 25 projects have been delivered through PPPs in Northern Ireland, and none of the literature published by commentators in Northern Ireland that I have read contains detailed references to the local experience from which we could learn. I am not saying that we should not learn from experiences elsewhere. References were made to the South’s experience. We were ahead of the South. In formulating its PPP policies, the South took advice from us and now it is ahead of us. We must take pride in the good elements of our experience and learn from those projects in which the experience was not so favourable.
PPPs have several key features. First, there is a need to standardise contracts. The approach to PPPs has been ad hoc, which is inevitable during the learning phase. However, in recent months, the Office of Government Commerce issued new standard contract documentation, on which Northern Ireland Departments and the other devolved regions were consulted, with the publication of a revised edition of the standardisation of PFI contracts, which is an update of original Treasury guidance. It is to be used throughout the UK and represents a significant step forward in establishing a standard approach to many of the issues that arise in private finance initiative projects. If we decide to make further use of the PPP route, the guidance will ensure that the process leading up to the signing of contracts is more expeditious.
As part of their consultation, the Executive will consider the adoption of the guidance, which is vital to speeding up the procurement process, spreading good practice and minimising development and bidding costs for Departments and the private sector. We must draw on the experience of projects awarded elsewhere, not just across the water but in other countries with extensive experience. Some people suggest that PFIs have been confined to Britain, Northern Ireland and the South. I invite Members to read the relevant literature that shows the widespread use of variations of PPP in many countries with different cultures and economic and social circumstances.
The phenomenon, therefore, is not peculiar to these islands.
The PPP review clarifies the scale of the deficit in infrastructure investment; almost every Member who contributed to the debate acknowledged that fact. That deficit amounts to £6 billion across all programmes. Innovation and creativity are required to find ways to bridge the gap in order to meet the future infrastructure needs of the region. The way in which we organise ourselves to meet that challenge is critical.
No single solution — be it the use of PPPs, borrowing or more traditional public expenditure — is likely to meet all our needs. In this major consultation on the report of the review of opportunities for PPPs, comments are invited on the full range of possible sources of funding and how those can best meet our needs. Some commentators believe that PPP funding is being promoted as "the only show in town", and to some extent that was reflected in the debate. However, that is far from being the case. If PPP were to fail to deliver best value and high-quality services, or if it were to put workers’ rights at risk, I would not recommend it while I am responsible for the portfolio. PPP should be put into the context of the investment resources and possibilities that are now at our disposal.
The policy framework on the use of PPPs should take account of local needs and circumstances and ensure that continued use is made of the current capital budgets. Would that it could all be done through the current capital budgets. Members address this issue as though the current capital budgets can grow simply at the wave of a magic wand. However, when Members also suggest that we should have some fiscal autonomy such as additional forms of taxation at our disposal, they acknowledge that the only way to get additional money into the public purse is to ask the public to put it there. I trust that that is acknowledged fully when such points are being made.
It is recognised in the review that there are merits in the PPP approach to finding funding options to address some capital investment requirements. Other routes will be used for other aspects of capital requirement.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel raised several issues, including a request for details about the reinvestment and reform initiative and the subsequent funding implications. The practical arrangements regarding the reinvestment and reform initiative are being developed, and the details of the borrowing must be settled with the Treasury. Borrowing to fund capital projects must be paid for from additional revenues.
When the reinvestment and reform initiative is advocated, it cannot be separated from the way in which that borrowing will be serviced. Mr Hussey illustrated that point well when he stated that when we make use of a borrowing facility to finance our homes, for example, we must be able to satisfy the lender that we have the capacity to service the borrowing. If we were to ask the Treasury to grant us a loan, we would be asking somebody else to help us to service that loan. That "somebody else" is the person on the street, whether he or she is in Belfast or elsewhere, or, as one of my ministerial Colleagues put it recently, is "the man in the Central Bar". I am not sure which bar he frequents, but he was referring to one of those kinds of establishments.
Borrowing to fund capital projects will have to be paid for from additional revenues. It would not be funded from the existing departmental expenditure limit, and the level of borrowing will, of course, need to be considered further by the Executive and the Assembly.
As has been mentioned by several Members, the relationship involving the strategic investment body, the procurement board, the Departments and the Department of Finance and Personnel, must be considered fully as we take forward work with the Assembly on the reinvestment and reform legislation and implement the initiative. It is vital that the various public bodies work constructively together to ensure that the infrastructure needs are met in the most effective and co-ordinated manner.
The idea of having a specific Minister with responsibility for leading on the investments was raised. No decisions have been taken on that matter, but Members should bear in mind that departmental Ministers have the responsibility of establishing priorities. We will be seeking advice from the strategic investment body as to the financing of the various projects. The House would not wish a single Minister or small group of Ministers to have the sole responsibility for driving forward a programme of investment that would take the prerogative of establishing priorities away from departmental Ministers. Therefore, teamwork is required, and that must be exercised in the Executive. Ideas will be brought forward when discussion takes place on the legislation associated with the establishment of the strategic investment body.
Mr Molloy asked about a strategy to embrace all the financing options. Some of the main funding issues, including the future of the rating system and the use of PPPs, are currently under public consultation. The Executive will consider the outcome of those consultations, and the work on the reinvestment and reform initiative, when setting their strategic plans.
The investment board will have a key role in advising on strategic planning of infrastructure investment, and we trust that its membership will provide the kind of experience and skills necessary to give the optimum advice to the Executive. In its membership, I expect the investment board also to reflect the interests of the social partners.
All PPP projects must demonstrate that they meet value for money criteria before being approved. The projects have long lives, and, as several Members mentioned, we must learn from experience and keep the projects under review to check that value for money is being delivered.
On the question, raised by Mr Molloy, of the capital resource held by Departments, the Executive are considering the level of capital spending as part of their work on the Budget.
As to the longer-term funding implications, which were also raised by Mr Molloy, the evidence from projects to date is that they are not an excessive charge, as they amount to less than 0·5% of the overall departmental expenditure limit resource Budget. Concerns were raised as to whether an inordinate level of debt might mount up, with the implication being that that would not be sustainable. That is a matter for the Executive, with the assistance of advice from the strategic investment board, to consider. It would be foolhardy of the Executive to simply extend borrowing beyond the capacity to service it. Indeed, if there were any attempt to do that, the Treasury would flash warning lights at a very early stage.
Mr Molloy and Mr Weir raised issues concerning the capacity of the construction industry, and deal flow, which are important points. One of the benefits of our strategic investment body is that it can engage with the construction industry when significant projects in which it is involved are being discussed to ensure that the deal flow can be managed. We do not want a situation to arise where we are signing up to projects that cannot be delivered. Members would be very critical if we were to do so.
Patricia Lewsley and Jane Morrice expressed concern about the potential of public-private partnerships to create a two-tier workforce. We are alert to that matter, and the working group dealt with it in some depth. It is important that we learn from our experience. No evidence of this phenomenon has emerged from our public-private partnerships. In our experience, no transferred workers have been made compulsorily redundant. The number of public-private partnerships is small, and —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Minister, you have only two minutes left to speak.

Dr Sean Farren: Many questions were raised, and if I do not touch on those in the time remaining, I assure Members that I will attempt to deal with them in writing.
Since the consultation on PPPs is the responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and of the Department of Finance and Personnel, I would like to thank Members for their views and comments on this important issue. We have had other opportunities to hear Members’ comments, and I am sure that they will continue to make their views known to us as the consultation progresses. This debate will help the Executive to shape the policy on the use of public-private partnerships, and to deliver value for money and high-quality services. I was pleased to hear the importance of both emphasised strongly in several contributions.
The ‘Financing our Future’ consultation has helped to promote wide discussion on PPPs with social partners, the general public and the private sector on their potential roles in meeting our investment needs. People have genuine concerns about PPPs, as the working group and the consultation exercise have highlighted. We in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and Department of Finance and Personnel share those concerns, particularly those relating to employee and equality issues. We are determined that the policy that we finally adopt on the use of PPPs will address those fears. We want to achieve a policy framework for the use of PPPs that helps to deliver an investment strategy that will provide a much-needed public sector infrastructure that finds broad support among all stakeholders and social partners.
I thank Members for the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the Report of the Review of Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland and the Executive’s consultation process on ‘Financing our Future’.

Change of Committee Membership

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are four motions on the Order Paper, in the names of Mr Bradley, Dr McDonnell and Dr Hendron. As these are business motions, no debate should ensue. Therefore, I propose, by leave of the House, to put the Questions on these motions en bloc.

Business Committee

Resolved:
That Ms Patricia Lewsley shall replace Mr John Tierney on the Business Committee. — [Dr Hendron.]

Committee for the Environment

Resolved:
That Mr Michael Coyle shall serve on the Committee for the Environment. — [Dr Hendron.]

Committee for Employment and Learning

Resolved:
That Mr Michael Coyle shall serve on the Committee for Employment and Learning. — [Dr Hendron.]

Committee on Standards and Privileges

Resolved:
That Mr Michael Coyle shall serve on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. — [Dr Hendron.]
Adjourned at 5.15 pm.